Principles-Based Comparison

Framework for Renewable

Electricity Options

Anna Jonasson, Ben Kneppers, Brendan Moore

School of Engineering
Blekinge Institute of Technology
Karlskrona, Sweden
2008

Thesis submitted for completion of Master of Strategic Leadership towards

Sustainability, Blekinge Institute of Technology, Karlskrona, Sweden.

Abstract: Electricity generation is both a major contributor to the root

causes of environmental unsustainability and an energy source that will
likely play an important role in the transition to a sustainable society.
Because renewable sources of electricity generation are seen as
environmentally friendly as a group, there is a danger that investments will
be made in technologies that do not effectively move society towards
sustainability. Therefore, this study presents a pilot decision-support tool,
Guide for Sustainable Energy Decisions (GSED), designed to give
investors, policy makers, and manufacturers strategic guidance on the most
effective renewable technologies to invest in for sustainability. The tool is
based on a modified version of life cycle assessment (LCA) that allows
comparisons of the upstream and downstream effects of generation
technologies from a whole-systems sustainability perspective. Early
feedback by experts suggests that, with further research, GSED could serve
as an effective comparison tool and help decision-makers make strategic
investments for sustainability.

Keywords: Renewable energy, electricity generation, strategic planning

Statement of Contribution

This thesis was the result of a truly effective collaboration. The topic
emerged from the research team‘s strong shared interest in discovering
solutions to today‘s emerging energy issues. Each member of the team
played an equal role in the investigation and discussion of the research
design phase. The research methods were then carried out to provide
balanced interviews and workshops while still effectively distributing
additional areas in a fashion complimentary to each member‘s background.

Anna focused on wave power research along with building an extensive

network of knowledge and connections with researchers and advisers in
Sweden. Ben looked into the method of biomass electricity generation
while also using his technical engineering background to help define the
system criteria and tool application strategies. Brendan focused on wind
power and researched extensively to find data on previous work in the
fields of life cycle assessment, sustainability indicators, and decision-
making models.

All members participated in the planning of the written report and

presentations. Brendan played the facilitating role on the written report by
distributing tasks and compiling the results to help professionalize the flow
of the completed document.

Karlskrona, June 3, 2008

Anna Jonasson

Ben Kneppers

Brendan Moore

ii
Acknowledgements

We would like to thank our thesis advisers, Pong Leung and Henrik Ny, for
their valuable support and insights. David Cook at The Natural Step
International provided us with our inspiration and steady guidance
throughout the thesis period. Dr. Karl-Henrik Robert‘s vision and
encouragement were also extremely helpful.

We would also like to thank the practitioners and experts who gave their
time to contribute to our thesis project, including:

Archie Kasnet; Benny Sindowe; Klaus Ronde; Paul Rijke; Mikael Lund;
Georges Dyer; Shannon Lloyd; Jan Sundberg; Tony Thompson; Fredrik
Lönngren; Ulrika Lundqvist; Per Svenningson; Sophie Hallstedt; and
Staffan Niklasson.

Finally, we would like to thank our peer and shadow groups for their
support, advice, and dedication to a sustainable world.

iii
Executive Summary

Introduction
One of the key challenges of the 21st century is to move towards
environmental and social sustainability while increasing human well-being.
Modern technology often has contradicting effects on these two
interdependent challenges, as illustrated by the current electricity
generation system. Cheap, readily-available electricity is crucial to many
of modern society‘s most important technologies and social advances. At
the same time, the vast majority of the world‘s electricity is generated using
fossil fuels and uranium, non-renewable resources with serious
environmental and social effects. A transition to a sustainable, prosperous
future requires sources of electricity that provide the benefits of today‘s
generation system while minimizing its negative effects.
Creating a sustainable energy system will require the widespread
deployment of renewable energy technologies, which draw their power
from the continuous flows of the natural environment and have a number of
major environmental benefits1. To encourage the adoption of these
technologies, a number of regional and national governments offer financial
and permitting incentives for renewable electricity projects. Exploratory
research focusing on Swedish policy-making found that these incentives
often do not distinguish between different types of renewable energy,
leading to a situation where a majority of new investment goes to the
cheapest alternatives (Hägg 2008). In addition, current decision-making
within the industry places a high value on financial return on investment,
greenhouse gas mitigation, and increasing the percentage of electricity that
comes from renewable sources. While this situation will most likely lead to
greater adoption of renewable technologies, there is a need for tools that
compare the environmental and social impacts of competing renewable
electricity generation options.
This study presents a pilot decision-support tool, Guide for Sustainable
Energy Decisions (GSED), which is designed to compare renewable
electricity generation options according to their effectiveness in moving

1
These renewable sources include solar thermal energy, solar photovoltaics, hydropower,
wind power, bioenergy, tidal power, and geothermal energy (Twidell and Weir, 1986).

iv
society towards sustainability. This tool is designed to give strategic
guidance to decision-makers in government, electric utility companies,
consultancies, and other organizations involved in the electricity generation
industry. It combines life cycle assessment with the Framework for
Strategic Sustainable Development (FSSD), commonly referred to as The
Natural Step framework. This framework uses the technique of
backcasting, which consists of creating a vision of future success, and then
asking ―What do we need to do today to reach our desired future?‖
(Dreborg 1996). While many backcasting studies, including those focusing
on energy, use a specific future scenario as their reference point (see
Johansson and Steen 1978), the FSSD backcasts from four Sustainability
Principles that use a scientifically-based understanding of the ecosystem to
set the minimum requirements for a sustainable society (Holmberg and
Robèrt, 2000). The first three principles deal with how human society
directly and indirectly damages the biosphere:
In a sustainable society, nature is not subject to:
1. …systematically increasing concentrations of materials
extracted from the Earth‘s crust;

2. …systematically increasing concentrations of substances

produced in society; or
3. …systematically increasing physical degradation.
The final principle deals with social sustainability and the importance of a
strong social fabric when attempting to meet the first three principles:
Also, in a sustainable society:
4. … people are not subject to conditions that systematically
undermine their capacity to meet their needs.
Two research questions were created to guide the development of the
GSED tool. The primary question concerned the key attributes of the tool,
while the secondary question focused on the efficacy of the resulting work.
Primary Research Question: What are the key attributes of a comparison
tool that prioritizes investment in renewable electricity options using the
Framework for Strategic Sustainable Development?
Secondary Research Question: What are the resulting comparison tool‘s
strengths, areas for improvement, and inherent limitations?

v
Methods
The research was divided into two stages: development of the Guide for
Sustainable Energy Decisions tool; and a period of testing and feedback to
measure the resulting tool‘s practicality. In the first stage, the tool was
created with input from a literature review, interviews, and deductive
reasoning within the research team. In the second stage, the practicality of
the tool was evaluated by both attempting to compare three types of
renewable electricity generation and gathering outside feedback on GSED‘s
strengths, areas for improvement, and inherent limitations.

Tool Development. Development of the comparison tool involved choosing

a general framework for analysis, identifying relevant criteria, and creating
a method for using the resulting tool to compare different technologies.
Decisions relating to these three aspects of the tool were made in parallel
and were significantly influenced by each other. The main outside sources
of information for this process were literature reviews and outside
interviews that focused on prior research related to decision-support tools
and sustainability indicators. Four key success criteria were used to create
a tool that had:

 A rigorous whole-systems perspective using a scientifically

principled definition of sustainability as a strategic compass;
 An ability to compare electricity generation systems with different
energy sources, costs structures, and levels of development;
 An analysis framework that takes the entire life cycle into account
when analysing electricity generation options; and
 An interface and analysis process that is easy to use, flexible, and
accessible to a broad range of stakeholders involved in the planning
and implementation of electricity generation projects.
Tool Testing and Feedback. To evaluate the comparison framework‘s
effectiveness and ease of use, a pilot comparison was performed on three
renewable electricity technologies: onshore wind energy, wave energy, and
woodchip biomass energy. In addition to the testing phase, the first version
of the tool was sent to a group of expert advisers for feedback. Because
GSED is still at an early stage of development, these advisers were chosen
based on their experience with the Framework for Strategic Sustainable
Development, life cycle assessment and, in some cases, their work on other
decision-support tools.

vi
Results
Tool Development. The GSED comparison tool was developed to
effectively compare the sustainability potential of renewable electricity
generation options. It was built around life cycle assessment (LCA), a
cradle-to-grave approach to assessing the environmental impacts of
industrial processes. By building off past research that integrated LCA and
the FSSD, GSED was able to evaluate renewable technologies throughout
their life cycles using the four Sustainability Principles. To ensure that
these evaluations could be effectively compared, the life cycles,
assumptions for energy use and materials, and units of comparison were
standardized for all types of electricity generation.
GSED’s comparison process is designed to evaluate renewable electricity
options in four life cycle stages (raw materials, production, use, and
disposal). In each of these stages, an inventory is created of the processes,
materials, energy sources, and wastes that could lead to unsustainable
impacts through a contribution to violations of the Sustainability Principles.
Then each technology‘s impacts are compared using a combination of
quantitative and qualitative indicators. One of the possible renewable
options is used as a benchmark, and alternative options are scored relative
to that benchmark. The results are then presented in a sixteen box matrix
that uses a series of colors (green, yellow, orange, red) to visualize the
strengths and weaknesses of the chosen technology in relation to the
Sustainability Principles.

Tool Testing. The GSED comparison process was tested on three

renewable electricity technologies: onshore wind power, woodchip biomass
power, and wave power. The results confirmed that general models of each
technology can be created, and highlighted the challenges associated with
trade-offs and data collection.

Expert Feedback. A summary of GSED‘s key attributes was sent to nine

outside experts. Feedback was generally very positive, and unanimously
praised the tool‘s overall design. Challenges encountered during tool
testing were reiterated, and the experts highlighted issues related to
recycling, technological development, and scalability.

vii
Key Findings

Tool Strengths. Pilot testing and expert feedback confirmed that GSED met
the key success criteria that were used as benchmarks throughout the thesis
process. The integration of LCA and FSSD expanded the scope of the
analysis and, in conjunction with standardization and generic models, made
comparisons between every type of renewable electricity generation
method possible. Once these comparisons were made, results were
presented in an easy-to-understand, color-based format that could be useful
for strategic planning.

Areas for Improvement. Feedback highlighted the importance of correctly

presenting the FSSD and including issues such as future technological
development and recycling in the comparison process. Tool testing
revealed the need for further research into the most effective means of
comparing renewable options.

Inherent Limitations. GSED’s inherent limitations included the difficulty

of data collection and the risk of poor results stemming from improper use
of the tool. While important, these problems are common to many types of
decision-support tools and can hopefully be partially mitigated by further
improvements in design.

Conclusion

The environmental sustainability challenge makes effective strategic

planning extremely important, both for society as a whole and the
electricity generation system in particular. To transition to a sustainable
electricity system, rigorous and accessible decision-support tools are
necessary. Testing, feedback, and discussion confirmed that GSED
successfully met the key success criteria for this type of tool and could be a
useful decision aide for a wide variety of stakeholders. Issues raised during
the thesis period should be explored through further research on this topic.

viii
Glossary

Backcasting: Planning ‗from success‘ by starting with the desired outcome

in mind and then determining the steps required to achieve the outcome.

Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS): An approach to mitigate global

warming by capturing carbon dioxide from large point sources such as
fossil fuel plants and storing it instead of releasing it into the atmosphere.

Combustion-based electricity generation: Electricity generation that

relies on a harvested or mined fuel whose life cycle needs to be considered
along with the technology itself.

Framework for Strategic Sustainable Development (FSSD): A planning

framework for sustainability that uses a combination of the backcasting
method and a clear, scientifically-sound definition of sustainability.

Greenhouse gases: Gasses in the atmosphere which reduce the loss of heat
into space. Human-induced emissions of greenhouse gases are believed to
be a main driver of current global temperature increases.

Life cycle assessment (LCA): A cradle-to-grave approach to assessing the

environmental impacts of industrial processes.

Non-combustion-based electricity generation: Electricity generation that

relies on the flows of the natural environment.

Program for the Endorsement of Forest Certification (PEFC): A non-

profit group involved in the certification of sustainable forestry practices.

Renewable energy: Energy generated from the natural flows of the

environment.

Sustainability Principles: Basic principles for socio-ecological

sustainability developed by the Natural Step, based on basic laws of science
and reviewed by the international scientific community

Sustainable society: A society that does not systematically degrade the

ecosystem‘s ability to provide life support services, and where all people
have the capacity to meet their basic needs.

ix
The Natural Step: An international non-governmental organization
(NGO), of Swedish origin, which developed and promotes The Natural
Step Framework for strategic planning towards sustainability.

Wave power: Wave power electricity generation consists of a magnetized

generator placed on the seabed. A piston in the generator is driven by the
motions from a buoy on the surface and can convert energy from waves to
electricity.

Wind power: Renewable electricity generation method that relies on the

physical force of the wind to turn generators.

Woodchip biomass: Forest products, untreated wood products, energy

crops and short rotation coppice, which are quick growing trees like willow.

x
Table of Contents

Acknowledgements ...................................................................................... ii

Statement of Contribution .......................................................................... ii

Executive Summary ................................................................................... iv

Glossary ....................................................................................................... ix

List of Figure and Tables .......................................................................... xv

1 Introduction .......................................................................................... 1

1.1 Electricity Generation and Sustainability ..................................... 1

1.1.1 Electricity Generation Today ........................................ 1

1.1.2 Electricity Generation in Context.................................. 3

1.2 Framework for Strategic Sustainable Development ..................... 4

1.2.1 Defining Sustainability.................................................. 5

1.2.2 The ABCD Process ....................................................... 7

1.2.3 Moving to Sustainability Electricity Generation ........... 8

1.3 Current Decision-Making Tools and Strategies ......................... 10

1.3.1 Overview ..................................................................... 10

1.3.2 Current Areas of Strength ........................................... 11

1.3.3 Opportunities for Improvement ................................... 11

1.4 A Tool for Electricity Decisions ................................................. 13

1.4.1 Scope and Limitations of Current Research ................ 13

1.5 Research Questions..................................................................... 15

xi
2 Methods .............................................................................................. 16

2.1 Research Design ......................................................................... 16

2.2 Comparison Framework Development ...................................... 16

2.3 Framework Testing and Feedback ............................................. 18

2.3.1 Tool Testing ................................................................ 18

2.3.2 Feedback ..................................................................... 20

3 Results ................................................................................................. 21

3.1 Overview .................................................................................... 21

3.2 The GSED Tool .......................................................................... 21

3.2.1 Key Attributes ............................................................. 21

3.2.2 Framework Overview ................................................. 22

3.2.3 Goal Description and Scoping .................................... 23

3.2.4 Life Cycle Inventory ................................................... 28

3.2.5 Impact Assessment ..................................................... 31

3.2.6 Life Cycle Interpretation ............................................. 36

3.3 Tool Testing ............................................................................... 37

3.3.1 Overview of Pilot Technologies ................................. 37

3.3.2 Building General Comparison Models ....................... 38

3.3.3 Key Life Cycle Findings for Wind ............................. 39

3.3.4 Comparison Results .................................................... 41

3.4 Expert Feedback ......................................................................... 41

3.4.2 Areas of Strength ........................................................ 42

xii
 3.4.3 Areas for Improvement ............................................... 43

3.4.4 Inherent Limitations .................................................... 46

4 Discussion ............................................................................................ 47

4.1 Research Validity........................................................................ 47

4.2 Meeting the Success Criteria ...................................................... 47

4.2.1 Whole-Systems Perspective ........................................ 48

4.2.2 Ability to Compare a Wide Range of Options ............ 48

4.2.3 Full Life Cycle Perspective ......................................... 48

4.2.4 Ease of Use, Flexibility, and Accessibility ................. 49

4.3 Areas for Improvement ............................................................... 49

4.3.1 Guidance on Trade-Offs .............................................. 49

4.3.2 Clarity Regarding the Sustainability Principles .......... 50

4.3.3 Additional Areas to Consider ...................................... 51

4.4 Inherent Limitations.................................................................... 51

5 Conclusion ........................................................................................... 53

5.1 Next Steps ................................................................................... 53

5.1.1 Integration with Existing Tools ................................... 54

5.2 Final Thoughts ............................................................................ 55

References .................................................................................................. 56

Appendix A: Analysis of Wind Power ..................................................... 62

Appendix B: Example of GSED Glossary ............................................... 65

Appendix C: Exploratory Interviews ...................................................... 67

xiii
Appendix D: Workshop Participants ...................................................... 68

Appendix E: Feedback Interviews .......................................................... 69

xiv
List of Figure and Tables

Figure 1.1 The current electricity generation system .................................... 2

Figure 1.2. The funnel metaphor ................................................................... 4

Figure 1.3. A sustainable electricity generation system ................................ 8

Figure 1.4. Backcasting from sustainable electricity .................................... 9

Figure 1.5. Guide for Sustainable Energy Decisions .................................. 15

Figure 3.1. Standardized life cycles ............................................................ 25

Figure 3.2. Sustainability impact sub-categories ........................................ 29

Figure 3.3. GSED life cycle inventory process ........................................... 30

Figure 3.4. Sustainability indicators, with examples .................................. 32

Figure 3.5. Comparison process focusing on impact severity..................... 34

Figure 3.6. Comparison process using a reference electricity option ......... 35

Figure 3.7. Comparison Flowchart, Metals and Minerals Sub-Category.... 35

Figure 3.8 GSED Results Matrix and color explanation............................. 36

Table 1.1 Generic Prioritization Questions in Current Decision-Making... 14

Table 2.1. ―Questions and Methods‖ matrix results.................................... 16

Table 2.2. Criteria used to choose renewable technologies for pilot .......... 19

xv
1 Introduction

1.1 Electricity Generation and

Sustainability

One of the key challenges of the 21st century is to move towards

environmental and social sustainability while increasing human well-being.
Modern technology often has contradicting effects on these two
interdependent challenges, as illustrated by the current electricity
generation system. Cheap, readily-available electricity is crucial to many
of modern society‘s most important technologies and social advances. At
the same time, the vast majority of the world‘s electricity is generated using
fossil fuels and uranium, non-renewable resources with serious
environmental and social effects. A transition to a sustainable, prosperous
future requires sources of electricity that provide the benefits of today‘s
generation system while minimizing its negative effects. One possible
answer to this problem is the widespread deployment of renewable energy
technologies, which draw their power from the continuous flows of the
natural environment2. To ensure that decision-makers invest in
technologies that make a strategic contribution to sustainability, tools are
needed to compare renewable electricity generation options. This study
attempts to develop such a tool.

1.1.1 Electricity Generation Today

Since the mid-1800s, electricity has played a profound role in the

development of human society. This energy source – clean, flexible, and
easily controlled – makes up 40% of the world‘s total energy use, with
worldwide demand projected to increase sharply in the coming decades
(Munson 2005, 3; IEA 2006, 1). The United Nations believes that access to
electricity and other forms of energy is a key step in campaigns against
poverty and global inequality (WSSD 2002, 9).

2
These renewable sources include solar thermal energy, solar photovoltaics, hydropower,
wind power, bioenergy, tidal power, and geothermal energy (Twidell and Weir, 1986).

1
Today, fossil fuel and nuclear power generation account for more than 80%
of total world electricity production, 65% of which comes from fossil fuels
alone (EIA 2005). This is due to these methods‘ superior properties in
energy density, controllability, and historically, cost. Nevertheless, the
fuels used for these types of generation are non-renewable resources and
have serious environmental consequences (see Figure 1.1 for an overview).
Fossil fuel generation is a major emitter of greenhouse gas emissions,
scarce metals, and other air pollutants (Sims et al. 2007, 255; Azar,
Holmberg, and Lindberg 1996, 96). Nuclear-based generation creates
radioactive waste, carries a risk of nuclear accidents, and could be
vulnerable to terrorism (Nielsen, 2006, 38; Barnaby and Kemp 2006, 24).
Capturing and storing carbon underground, along with careful handling of
nuclear waste, may help mitigate some of these environmental damages in
the short term. However, the production of oil, coal, natural gas, and
uranium is projected to peak at various times during the next 200 years,
limiting these options‘ usefulness in a sustainable future (Mason 2007,
1318).

Figure 1.1 The current electricity generation system

2
1.1.2 Electricity Generation in Context

The environmental problems associated with modern electricity generation

have not occurred in a vacuum. They are part of a broader deterioration of
the Earth‘s ecosystem caused by human activities. This deterioration is
especially important because the biosphere provides society with many
essential goods and life-support services (Daily et al. 1997). These include
purification of air and water, regulation of climate, and the production and
maintenance of biodiversity. Ecosystem services are absolutely essential
to technological society and general well-being. Historically, demand for
these services was small enough that serious ecological effects caused by
human activities were limited in scope and duration.

However, as global population and demand for resources has grown,

pressure on the biosphere has increased dramatically. Human alteration of
the Earth has led to massive land transformation, biodiversity loss, and a
significant rise in atmospheric CO2 levels (Vitousek and Mooney 1997).
These environmental effects are creating increasing pressure on human
society. As they get worse, the options and flexibility available to humans
will systematically decrease, making a transition to an ecologically sound
model much more difficult.

The metaphor of a funnel can be used to simplify the global situation while
acknowledging the connections between environmental issues. Non-
sustainable development can be visualised as entering a funnel where the
space becomes narrower and more limiting. This narrowing of options is
caused by the environmental and social crises that are becoming common
occurrences, such as record droughts, climate change, resource depletion,
and the weakening of the social fabric. Negative effects from these events
can be visualized as hitting the walls of the funnel. A sustainable society,
in contrast, will not only mitigate environmental and social problems, but
will also give human society more options and flexibility to meet new
challenges.

3
 Figure 1.2. The funnel metaphor

The transition toward sustainability will require ingenuity, dedication, and

access to energy. Without a reliable, clean, and safe source of energy, the
flexibility and options available to move toward sustainability narrow
considerably. Because of its flexibility and relative ease of use, it is
reasonable to assume that electricity will play an important role in the
sustainable society. Therefore, a key goal of sustainable development
should be the creation of an electricity system that will provide energy for a
transition to sustainability without contributing to large-scale environmental
and social problems. The next section will discuss a strategic planning
framework for moving towards that vision of sustainable electricity
generation.

1.2 Framework for Strategic

Sustainable Development

Creating a sustainable energy system requires a strategic planning focus

that gives decision-makers a clear framework for success. As
environmental problems have become more complex, energy planners have
used the technique of backcasting to plan effectively for sustainability
(Johansson and Steen, 1978; Dreborg 1996, 814; Holmberg and Robèrt,
2000, 294). Backcasting consists of creating a vision of future success, and

4
then asking ―What do we need to do today to reach our desired future?‖
(Dreborg 1996, 813).

The Framework for Strategic Sustainable Development (FSSD) is a

combination of the backcasting method and a clear, scientifically-sound
definition of sustainability. While many backcasting studies, including
those focusing on energy, use a specific future scenario as their reference
point, the FSSD backcasts from four Sustainability Principles that use a
scientifically-based understanding of the ecosystem to set the minimum
requirements for a sustainable society.

1.2.1 Defining Sustainability

―Since there is probably no limit to the number of possible

designs of sustainable societies, the definition [of
sustainability] must be searched for on the principle level –
any sustainable society would meet such principles.‖

(Holmberg and Robèrt, 2000, 297)

The creation of a robust definition of sustainability requires an

understanding of the system in which sustainability planning will occur, in
this case, human society within the Earth‘s biosphere. This system is
extremely complex, and should only be studied enough to understand how
society can damage the ecosphere. Therefore, a principled definition of
sustainability should be derived from a scientific understanding of the
natural world. The relevant areas of that understanding include:

 Matter and energy can be neither created or destroyed;

 Matter and energy tends to disperse spontaneously;

 The value of materials to human society is a function of their

concentration, structure, and purity, and;

 Photosynthesis is the primary producer of this value in the

biosphere.

Because the Earth is a closed system (i.e. energy enters and leaves, while
matter by and large does not), human society and much of the biosphere
depend on photosynthesis and energy input from the sun to build structure

5
and concentration. Current human practices endanger this process by
damaging the biological foundation for society through direct and indirect
means. Therefore, sustainability principles should be designed to reduce
human pressure on the environment to a level that is sustainable for the
foreseeable future.

Robust sustainability principles should be worded in such a way that they

are:

 based on a scientifically agreed-upon view of the world;

 necessary to achieve sustainability;

 sufficient to cover all aspects of sustainability;

 concrete enough to guide actions and problem-solving; and

 mutually-exclusive to facilitate comprehension and monitoring

(Holmberg and Robèrt, 2000, Ny et al., 2006).

Holmberg and Robèrt have derived four Sustainability Principles that

attempt to fulfill these conditions (Holmberg and Robèrt, 2000; Ny et al.,
2006). The first three principles deal with how human society directly and
indirectly damages the biosphere:

In a sustainable society, nature is not subject to:

1. …systematically increasing concentrations of materials

extracted from the Earth‘s crust;

2. …systematically increasing concentrations of substances

produced in society; or

3. …systematically increasing physical degradation.

The final principle deals with social sustainability and the importance of a
strong social fabric while attempting to meet the first three principles:

Also, in a sustainable society:

6
 4. … people are not subject to conditions that systematically
undermine their capacity to meet their needs.

1.2.2 The ABCD Process

The Sustainability Principles articulated above serve as constraints that set

out the minimum for a sustainable society, and can therefore serve as a
vision of success when backcasting. Robèrt has developed a four-step
―ABCD‖ tool that formalizes the process of backcasting from Sustainability
Principles and facilitates practical application of the FSSD. An example of
this tool being used for the electricity generation system is given below:

Step A: Awareness. A shared mental model is created around the

Framework for Strategic Sustainable Development. This is important so
that everyone has a common understanding of the definition of
sustainability and the backcasting method.

Step B: Baseline. Planners ask the question ―In what ways, and to what
extent, does today‘s electricity system contribute to violations of the
Sustainability Principles?‖ A baseline assessment is created, and relevant
tools to move towards sustainability are identified.

Step C: Visioning. Participants create a vision of a sustainable electricity

system. Possible solutions to move towards that vision of sustainability are
listed, regardless of their short-term feasibility.

D: Strategic Program Design. Solutions from step C are prioritized based

on the following three guiding questions:

1. Does this action lead in the right direction? When planning for
sustainability, actions must be evaluated on the basis of their
contribution to the movement towards sustainability.
2. Is this action a versatile platform for future improvements?
Financial, social, and intellectual investments should increase the
options and flexibility available to society for adaptation in a
changing environment.
3. Does this action create a sufficient return on investment? Return on
investment can include the financial return to a private firm, the
positive effects created by a government program, or the amount of
energy that is created from the amount of energy invested.

7
1.2.3 Moving to Sustainable Electricity
Generation

The current electricity system violates the four Sustainability Principles in a

number of ways. The fuels used for generation are extracted from the
Earth‘s crust and lead to a systematic increase of carbon, scarce metals, and
uranium in the biosphere. In addition, the combustion process produces
man-made substances such as nitrous oxide, solid waste, and radioactive
isotopes. Mining of materials contributes to the physical degradation of
sensitive ecosystems, especially when practices like strip mining are used
(Ward 2005). Finally, throughout the generation process there is a potential
for negative health effects, poor working conditions, and other societal
problems.

Figure 1.3. A sustainable electricity generation system

A sustainable electricity system would continue to provide the output of the

current methods (electricity and heat), while insuring that electricity
generation does not contribute to a systematic violation of the Sustainability

8
Principles (see Figure 1.3). Renewable electricity generation will play a
key role in this new system, but choosing which technologies to invest in
requires a strategic overview and an effective means of prioritization. In an
ideal decision-making process, the ABCD process would be used to
evaluate and prioritize investment in the renewable electricity options that
would most effectively move the electricity generation system towards a
future constrained by the four Sustainability Principles. In order for that
process to begin, decision-makers throughout the electricity generation
industry would need access to guidance and effective decision-support
tools.

Figure 1.4. Backcasting from a sustainable electricity generation system

A decision-support tool designed to give policy makers, investors, and

manufacturing firms a strategic view of the electricity generation system
would help create the ideal process outlined above. Decision-support tools
are designed to give these stakeholders the data and analysis framework to
help make solid decisions on which technologies to invest in. An ideal tool
would look at competing electricity generation options from a holistic
sustainability perspective and present the results in a format that is
accessible to all relevant stakeholders. The current study explores the
attributes of a comparison tool for electricity generation systems that can be
used early in the decision-making process to decide if a technology has
enough sustainability potential to invest money, build research and
development programs, or create installation incentives. To build off the
research and tool creation that has already occurred, exploratory research
was carried out on the current decision-making process in the electricity
generation industry.

9
1.3 Current Decision-Making Tools
and Strategies

1.3.1 Overview

Current decision-making strategies and tools were studied using literature

reviews, questionnaires and interviews. Questionnaires were sent to
renewable energy consultancies, government energy departments, electric
utilities, and the developers of current decision-support software tools for
renewable energy. They consisted of four open-ended questions
concerning renewable energy and decision-making. In addition, interviews
were conducted with renewable energy consultants, Swedish government
officials, and energy researchers at Swedish universities. The interviews
were semi-structured, in that although a specific set of questions was used,
interviewees were free to move to other topics.

These data collection methods focused on four main areas of interest: the
interviewees‘ role in electricity generation; comparison criteria for
electricity generation systems; current decision-making tools and strategies;
and possible areas of improvement of these tools. The three relevant
questions included in the questionnaire to electric utilities and the Swedish
government are given below:

1. What criteria do you use to compare renewable energy

technologies?
2. Do you use outside tools and/or consultants to measure the
environmental impacts of your renewable energy projects? If yes,
please list the tools and consultants.
3. What are the gaps and weaknesses, if any, associated with current
tools and methods? How could these gaps be filled?

Regional Focus. The exploratory research focused on decision-making

tools and methods in Sweden, a nation of 9 million people in northern
Europe. Sweden has a long history of governmental support for renewable
energy, and in 2006, 54% of the nation‘s electricity was generated from
renewable hydro, biomass, and wind energy sources (Svensk Energi 2007,
3). This situation came about as a result of long standing government
support for hydropower and an energy policy created after the oil crisis of
the 1970s. In 1980, the Swedish parliament set up long term energy goals
for the nation that called for the decommissioning of all nuclear reactors

10
and a transition to ―an energy system based as far as possible on lasting,
preferably renewable and indigenous, energy sources with the least possible
environmental impact,‖ (Silveira, 2001, 85).

1.3.2 Current Areas of Strength

Organizations currently use a variety of criteria to choose between

renewable energy options, including return on investment, environmental
impacts, security of supply, and feasibility (Sims et al. 2007, 252; De Jager
2008). The choice of criteria and their relative importance depends on the
type and size of the organization. Regardless, in many organizations the
environmental benefits of renewable electricity generation are recognized,
and in Sweden investment is supported by incentives from the national
government (Tillenius 2008). In addition, many large corporations fund
internal studies and research partnerships related to renewable electricity
options (Örtenvik 2008). A variety of tools are available to these decision-
makers that analyze feasibility, return on investment, and reductions of
specific environmental effects such as greenhouse gas emissions and
nitrous oxide (Bourque 2008).

1.3.3 Opportunities for Improvement

Whole-Systems Sustainability Perspective. Current tools can be used to

consider the environmental impacts of most types of electricity generation.
These analyses are usually limited to quantifiable, proven, and well-
understood impacts such as the greenhouse effect and acidification. While
these tools allow decision-makers to take a detailed look at some of the
most obvious impacts of electricity generation, they omit other important
environmental and social effects. Additionally, they are not sensitive to
emerging sustainability issues that may be caused by widespread use of
new technologies. The issues related to biomass electricity generation that
are not covered by most current tools (deforestation etc.) illustrate how a
whole-systems sustainability perspective could be useful. In order to
develop criteria to ensure that a biomass project is moving electricity
generation towards sustainability, the holistic sustainability potential of
biomass generation projects could be determined through a whole-systems
view.

11
 “There is a need for (harmonized) biomass sustainability
criteria.‖

(de Jager 2008)

Strategic Outlook. There is an overall lack of strategic environmental

planning tools in today‘s organizations (Wrisberg et al. 2002, 80). In many
cases, any type of renewable electricity generation is therefore seen as
preferable to current fossil fuel and nuclear options. As a result,
government incentives and many firms do little to differentiate between
different types of renewable energy. This situation gives an advantage to
the cheapest alternatives without a clear idea of relevant sustainability
impacts. For this reason, decision-makers often choose the first renewable
electricity option that is feasible and cost effective (Ullman 2006, 34; de
Jager 2008).

“A problem with the electricity certificate [government

incentive] system is that all of the renewable energy sources
are treated equal. Some of them may cost a little bit more to
start up and may then not have the same chance in the
competition with others.”

(Melin 2008)

“It is important to develop a criterion that gives a direction of

the types of energies environmental effects. This criterion
hardly exists today but a vivid discussion is going on, for
example within the EU.”

(Hägg 2008)

Another side effect of this situation is the lack of strategic constraints on

project planning. There are a number of tools that allow users to optimize
an electricity generation project‘s energy output and return on investment.
However, without clear criteria to assess the sustainability potential of a
technology, there is a possibility that highly optimized but unsustainable
projects will get approved.

12
1.4 A Tool for Electricity Decisions

“In energy modelling circles, there sometimes seems to be a

perception that finding better algorithms or more accurate
models is somehow going to be the key to improving energy
and climate policy. But I think the way forward is not so
much better algorithms (although these are of course also
important). Rather, it is broadening access to energy policy,
by making models more approachable and usable, so that
instead of being used by a few dozen experts they can
eventually be used by hundreds or even thousands of
stakeholders.

(Heaps 2008)

1.4.1 Scope and Limitations of Current

Research

To summarize the results of the exploratory research, current electricity

generation decision-making places a high value on greenhouse gas
mitigation, return on investment, and increases in the percentage of
electricity generation that comes from renewable sources. A number of
software tools and consultants are available to assist decision-making
related to these priorities. This situation will most likely lead to a greater
role for renewable electricity generation in the coming decades.
Nevertheless, there is strong demand for strategic guidance related to the
overall sustainability of electricity generation systems.

In the sense of prioritization of measures to move the electricity generation

system to sustainability, the results of our survey were mixed. Current
tools and methods effectively address the return on investment for
renewable energy technologies. They also give guidance on certain
environmental impacts, including greenhouse gases, one of electricity
generation‘s most serious unsustainable effects. But they do not take a
whole-systems view of sustainability and can therefore miss emerging
sustainability issues and lead to investments in technological and
environmental dead ends.

13
 Table 1.1 Generic Prioritization Questions in Current Decision-Making

Generic Does this Does this

Is this measure a
measure move in measure have a
Prioritization the right
versatile platform
sufficient return
Questions for success?
direction? on investment?

No reviewed tools
Limited to
Answered in addressed this Answered very
improvements in
issue. The focus well, numerous
Current EGS known,
was on short-term, tools for financial
Decision- quantifiable
quantifiable and energy return
Making? environmental
environmental on investment.
damage.
benefits.

Therefore, it is reasonable to conclude that a decision-support tool designed

to compare renewable electricity generation options from the perspective of
the FSSD would be valuable from a sustainability perspective. As a result,
this study focused on the development, testing, and improvement of a
comparison tool called the Guide for Sustainable Energy Decisions
(GSED). The tool will use quantitative and qualitative data to give a broad
overview of current and emerging sustainability issues related to renewable
electricity generation. GSED was designed for a number of audiences
within the electricity generation sector. Renewable energy manufacturers,
such as wind turbine producers, can use the tool to make the production and
disposal of their products more sustainable. In addition, there is an
opportunity to help influence public opinion and help decision-makers in
government, municipalities, and private investment firms choose strategic
sustainable electricity investments.

A complete, functional GSED tool would consist of:

 An introductory section that explains the Framework for

Strategic Sustainable Development, including the current
sustainability challenge, the four Sustainability Principles, and
the importance of backcasting and whole-systems thinking;

 A comparison section where users evaluate the unsustainable

impacts of electricity generation systems with the FSSD, using

14
 models of the chosen technologies and data specific to the
region where the decision is made;

 A results section where the comparison would be visualized in

an easy-to-understand format; and

 An explanation section that helps the user understand the

severity of specific materials and actions within the FSSD.

The current research will focus on the development of the main attributes of
the tool‘s comparison section. Further discussions on the other components
can be found in section 5.1. In addition, the practicality and strategic
usefulness of the proposed tool will be evaluated through testing and
outside feedback.

Figure 1.5. Guide for Sustainable Energy Decisions

1.5 Research Questions

In order to focus on the development testing of a sustainability comparison

tool for electricity generation, two research questions were created. The
primary question concerned the key attributes of the tool, while the
secondary question focused on the efficacy of the resulting work.

Primary Research Question: What are the key attributes of a comparison

tool that prioritizes investment in renewable electricity options using the
Framework for Strategic Sustainable Development?

Secondary Research Question: What are the resulting comparison tool‘s

strengths, areas for improvement, and inherent limitations?

15
2 Methods

2.1 Research Design

The research was divided into two stages: development of the GSED
comparison tool for renewable electricity options and a period of testing
and feedback to measure the resulting framework‘s practicality. In the first
stage, a pilot version of GSED was developed with input from a literature
review, interviews, and deductive reasoning within the thesis group. In the
second stage, the practicality of the pilot tool was evaluated by attempting
to compare three types of renewable electricity generation and by seeking
outside feedback on GSED‘s strengths, areas for improvement, and inherent
limitations.

Table 2.1. “Questions and Methods” matrix results

Literature Outside Deductive Framework

Question
Review Interviews Reasoning Testing
1 Key attributes of
a comparison
framework for X X X
electricity
generation?
2 Is the tool a
practical tool to
X X X
move towards
sustainability?

2.2 Comparison Framework

Development

This phase of the study was designed to answer the primary research
question:

Primary Research Question: What are the key attributes of

a comparison tool that prioritizes investment in renewable
electricity options using the Framework for Strategic
Sustainable Development?

16
Though internal group processes and external consultation, the
following critical success criteria were created for a pilot GSED tool.
According to the criteria, the tool must have:

 A rigorous whole-systems perspective using a scientifically

principled definition of sustainability as a strategic compass.
The main goal of this study is to create a comparison tool that
evaluates electricity generation options on the basis of
environmental and social sustainability. For this goal to be
realized, it was necessary to integrate a rigorous whole-systems
view of sustainability into the analysis process.

 An ability to compare electricity generation systems with

different energy sources, costs structures, and levels of
development. The tool needs to be an effective prioritization aid
that can compare the sustainability potential and unsustainable
impacts of a wide variety of electricity generation technologies.
For that reason, a design that allows users to compare a diverse
range of electricity generation technologies is essential.

 An analysis framework that takes the entire lifecycle into

account when analysing electricity generation options. With the
continuous advancements in electricity generation technologies, the
tool must be capable of not only considering the current options but
the applicability of assessing any possible technology available in
the future. By addressing it as a comparable system, rather than a
specific type of technology, there will be an assurance in knowing
the tool will be pertinent for the future, and provide clarity in which
decision is the most sustainable.

 A tool that is easy to use, flexible, and accessible to a broad

range of stakeholders involved in the planning and
implementation of electricity generation projects. The usability
and impact of the tool will depend in large part on its accessibility
to stakeholders, the range of technologies it can compare, and its
ease of use.

17
Development of the GSED pilot involved choosing a general framework for
analysis, identifying relevant criteria, and creating a method for using the
resulting tool to compare different technologies. Decisions relating to these
three aspects of the tool were made in parallel and were significantly
influenced by each other. The main outside sources of information for this
process were literature reviews and conversations focusing on prior
research and experience with decision support tools and sustainability
indicators.

2.3 Framework Testing and Feedback

This phase of the study was designed to answer the secondary research
question:

Secondary Research Question: What are the resulting comparison

tool‘s strengths, areas for improvement, and inherent limitations?

2.3.1 Tool Testing

To evaluate the comparison tool‘s effectiveness and ease of use, a pilot

comparison was performed using three renewable electricity technologies.
There were at least nine different renewable generation methods that could
be used for this phase of the research. To choose among these options, the
nine technologies were compared using four variables: the nature of the
primary energy source; current installed capacity in Sweden; theoretical
potential for electricity generation in Sweden, and the difficulty of data
collection. By choosing renewable technologies with a wide range of
values for these variables, it was possible to test the tool in a number of
situations that may arise during real-world decision-making. On the basis
of this data, three technologies were chosen: onshore wind energy, wave
energy, and woodchip biomass energy. This phase of the study was not
meant to create a definitive comparison of these options. Instead, it served
to highlight areas for improvement and inherent limitations in the
comparison process.

Data for wind came from workshops with turbine manufacturers and
operators, as well as review of the extensive environmental literature
related to wind turbines. Biomass data was gathered through workshops
with power plant supervisors and biomass providers, as well as limited
literature review. Wave data was based on experimental designs, and so

18
depended largely on interviews and workshops with researchers directly
involved in the design process.

Nature of the Energy Source

There are three main types of renewable electricity generation.

Combustion-based electricity generation relies on the combustion of a
mined or harvested fuel as an energy source. Nuclear generation systems
also depend on the energy released from the nuclear fission of uranium.
Non-combustion electricity generation rely on energy sources that are
provided by the natural environment. Woodchip biomass is a combustion-
based technology, while wind and wave are non-combustion.

Current Capacity

Another variable that was taken into account was the current installed
capacity of the renewable energy technologies. Currently, wind energy and
biomass energy have a large amount of installed capacity, while the type of
wave power studied is still in the experimental stages.

Table 2.2. Criteria used to choose renewable technologies for pilot

Woodchip
Question Onshore Wind Wave Biomass
Combustion/
Non Non
Non- Combustion
Combustion Combustion
Combustion
Current
3 1.4 TWh Negligible 50 TWh4
Capacity
Theoretical
29 TWh 15-20 TWh 8.8 TWh
Potential
Ease of Data Easy Difficult Difficult
Collection5

3
Figures for installed capacity and theoretical potential refer to Sweden. Data comes from
(Ebenå, 2007).
4
Includes electricity generation, biofuels, and heating.
5
This is a subjective measure arrived at through literature reviews.

19
Theoretical Production Potential

For the Swedish region, these three technologies covered a wide range of
installation potentials. Although there is research into wave power within
the Swedish community, the actual potential for this technology is
somewhat limited compared to other nations, specifically Norway.
However, it is still close to the potential for wind power, and about twice as
large as the sustainable potential for woodchip biomass generation.

Ease of Data Collection

When using a quantitative comparison tool, it is important to address the

issues of uncertainty and lack of data. Because the tool should be able to
compare renewable electricity technologies that are at different stages of
development, a method needed to be designed to compare options with
widely varying amounts of available data. In this case, wind power has
been studied extensively, biomass electricity has less information available,
and wave power has none because the technology is still in the
development stage.

2.3.2 Feedback

In order to gain outside feedback, a summary document explaining the first

version of GSED‘s comparison process was sent to a group of outside
advisers. Because the tool was still at an early stage of development, these
advisers were chosen based on their experience with the Framework for
Strategic Sustainable Development and, in some cases, their work on other
decision-support tools. Their feedback was gathered through written
comments and unstructured phone interviews. The main topics of
discussion focused on the appropriateness of:

 The tool’s overall framework (i.e. use of sustainable life cycle

assessment, system boundaries, the division of the life cycle stages).

 The divisions within each sustainability principle (i.e.

metals/minerals and fossil fuels for the first sustainability principle).

 The analysis process (general yes or no question followed by

comparison between different energy options).

 The criteria used to analyze energy options.

20
3 Results

3.1 Overview

This section presents results arrived at through literature reviews,

interviews, and deductive reasoning. It is based on the following structure:

 Section 3.2: An overview of the Guide for Sustainable

Energy Decisions comparison tool that was developed to
analyse and prioritize renewable electricity options using
the four Sustainability Principles and the Framework for
Strategic Sustainable Development. This section includes
justification for the key attributes of the GSED tool.

 Sections 3.3 and 3.4: The results of pilot testing of the tool,
as well as responses from outside experts who were sent a
document explaining GSED‘s criteria, comparison process,
and overall framework.

3.2 The GSED Tool

3.2.1 Key Attributes

The first research question asked: What are the key attributes of a
comparison tool that prioritizes investment in renewable electricity options
using the Framework for Strategic Sustainable Development?

To explore this question, a pilot comparison tool, the Guide for Sustainable
Energy Decisions (GSED), was created through background research,
deductive reasoning, and discussions with outside experts. The resulting
tool was designed to meet the four key attributes of an effective comparison
framework outlined in Section 2.2:

A rigorous comparison tool should include:

 A rigorous whole-systems perspective using a scientifically

principled definition of sustainability as a strategic compass;

21
  An ability to compare electricity generation systems with different
energy sources, costs structures, and levels of development;

 An analysis framework that takes the entire lifecycle into account

when analysing electricity generation options; and

 An interface and analysis process that is easy to use, flexible, and

accessible to a broad range of stakeholders involved in the planning
and implementation of electricity generation projects.

3.2.2 Framework Overview

The GSED comparison tool was designed around life cycle assessment
(LCA), a cradle-to-grave approach to assessing industrial processes. LCA
analyzes a product‘s environmental impacts from raw material extraction,
through its production process and useful life, and finally to disposal or
recycling. Because this method captures environmental impacts
throughout the life cycle, using LCA to compare electricity generation
systems had important benefits. The most significant of these was the
ability to compare generation technologies whose impact on the
environment came at different points in the product life cycle. For
example, a comparison of wind and biomass generation required a tool that
takes into account the wind turbine‘s major impacts (which mainly occur in
the raw materials and production stages) and those of biomass combustion
(which are concentrated in the electricity generation stage). LCA allows a
side-by-side comparison of these options throughout the life cycle, giving
decision-makers an effective tool to compare electricity generation systems.

In order to combine the operational benefits of life cycle assessment with a

strategic sustainability perspective, the GSED comparison tool compared
electricity generation systems using a type of LCA commonly referred to as
Sustainable Life Cycle Assessment (SLCA). SLCA integrates the
Framework for Strategic Sustainable Development into the LCA method,
giving decision-makers a strategic overview of how a product impacts
movement towards the goal of sustainable development. This method is
under development, and has been employed by a large chemical production
firm to guide strategic product development (Andersson et al. 1998; ICI
2007). For the purposes of this study, a new version of the SLCA method
was created to compare electricity generation options in a way that would
be useful to decision-makers.

22
The key attributes of this tool, as well as its differences with traditional
LCA and SLCA, are described below within the framework of the LCA
development process created by the International Standards Organization
(ISO). The four steps of this process are:

1. Goal Definition and Scoping: Define the goal of the LCA,

what type of information is needed to reach that goal, and the
boundaries of the system being studied.

2. Life Cycle Inventory: Identify and collect data necessary to

measure the impacts of the product.

3. Life Cycle Impact Assessment: Assess the potential

environmental and human impacts of the data collected from the
life cycle inventory.

4. Life Cycle Interpretation: Present the results of the

assessment.

(Adapted from ISO 1997; EPA 2006, 2)

3.2.3 Goal Description and Scoping

Goal Description. The GSED comparison tool was designed as a planning

aid with the ability to compare a wide range of electricity generation
technologies from a strategic sustainability perspective, while also
remaining accessible to stakeholders (see section 3.1.1). In comparison to a
traditional life cycle assessment, GSED measured the estimated impacts of
emerging sustainability issues in addition to well-understood environmental
effects such as global warming and eutrophication. The overall analysis
process was therefore similar to the Sustainable Life Cycle Assessment
used by Imperial Chemical Industries (ICI 2007; Ny 2006; Andersson et al.
1998). However, there were important modifications made to the SLCA
method as well. SLCA was designed as a tool that could be used by
specific organizations to get a strategic overview of a product life cycle.
This technique could be used early in the design process to identify ―hot
spots‖ in the life cycle that warranted further research. For this reason, the
analysis process was mostly qualitative in nature. In order to effectively
compare electricity generation systems, this process was modified in GSED
to include quantitative data and modelling. This made the comparisons
more useful to decision-makers, who often prefer environmental decision-

23
support tools that are backed up by quantitative data (Wrisberg et al. 2002,
66).

In addition, GSED needed to compare significantly different processes in a

way that was strategically useful. With this goal in mind, three early design
decisions were made to ensure that the tool could be used to compare as
many electricity generation technologies as possible. The first decision was
to use generic models of electricity generation systems to estimate the
average unsustainable impacts of a technology. This approach stood in
contrast to many traditional life cycle assessments, which compared the
unsustainable impacts of specific, real-world electricity projects (see
Ardente 2004; Lenzen 2002; Michaelis 1998; Vestas 2006a). Using actual
electricity generation sites as data sources allowed organizations to tailor
results to specific products, cut down on uncertainty, and give an
assessment academic credibility. These benefits led to a large number of
detailed, project specific assessments. However, the focus on specific
projects limited the usefulness of these assessments for general decision-
making. As a result, a number of generic assessments have been attempted
(Gagnon, Belanger, and Uchiyama 2002; Spitzley and Keoleian 2005). In a
specific example, Gagnon compared 12 types of electricity generation using
generic data that focused on the impact categories of emissions of
greenhouse gases, sulphur dioxide, nitrous oxide, direct land requirements,
and energy payback ratio (Gagnon, Belanger, and Uchiyama 2002, 1270).
These types of assessments were often designed to give policy-makers and
energy planners a broad overview of probable environmental impacts
(Gagnon, Belanger, and Uchiyama 2002, 1267). When possible, the
researchers still collected data for the assessment from real-world projects.
However, those projects were chosen because they were representative of
an average example of that electricity generation system.

For the GSED tool, a similar method was chosen, which focused on
building a general model of an electricity generation system. First, a
flowchart showing the types of material/energy inputs and the effects on
ecosystems and society were created. Then this diagram was completed by
adding quantitative data on materials, energy, and other effects, plus
qualitative data on social effects. These estimates came from two sources:
site-specific information from previous life cycle assessments, and
estimates based on an average expected generation system. The use of a
generic model meant that GSED could be used early in the planning
process, when site specific data was not available. In addition, it made

24
comparisons possible between mature technologies such as wind, which
have been tested extensively, and experimental technologies such as wave
power, which do not have enough test data for a traditional life cycle
assessment.

The second decision involved standardizing the life cycle stages in a way
that allowed side-by-side comparisons of electricity generation methods.
Achieving this goal was especially challenging because of the differences
between combustion, non-combustion, and nuclear electricity generation
(see Spitzley and Keoleian 2005, 8). Both nuclear systems and combustion
systems such as coal and biomass generate electricity using a mined or
harvested fuel. In contrast, non-combustion systems such as wind and
wave produce electricity from the flows of the natural environment.
Because non-combustion systems do not require a fuel to generate
electricity, LCA of these methods only considers the life cycle of the
generation equipment. Combustion and nuclear assessments, by contrast,
must include the life cycle impacts from both the generation equipment and
the fuel source.

Figure 3.1. Standardized life cycles for electricity generation comparisons

25
In order to evaluate these electricity systems in a way that would allow
strategic comparisons, four standardized life cycle stages were created.
These stages - raw materials, production, use, and disposal - were the same
for all types of electricity generation. The raw materials stage captured all
unsustainable impacts related to the extraction/harvesting, processing, and
transportation of the raw materials. The production stage focused on
impacts related to producing components and transporting them to the
electricity generation site. The use stage focused specifically on impacts
during the generation of electricity. Importantly, the life cycles of the fuel
used in combustion and nuclear systems were included in the use stage,
since the vast majority of their impacts occur while the electricity
generation system is operating. The disposal stage focused on impacts that
occurred after the technology had passed its useful generating life. Because
these stages were the same for all compared technologies, results could be
visualized to show the life cycle stages that had the most serious impacts.

Generic technology models and standard life cycles ensured that both
mature and experimental technologies could be compared in a way that
could be visualized in a strategically helpful format. In addition to these
modifications, it was necessary to standardize assumptions regarding
energy and material use. The values that are chosen for these variables,
such as the amount of electricity it takes to produce one ton of steel, have a
significant effect on the results of a life cycle assessment. For example, in
a study of 72 life cycle assessments of wind turbines, differing assumptions
in a number of categories caused greenhouse gas potential to vary between
7.9 and 123.7 grams of CO2 equivalent per kilowatt hour (Lenzen and
Munksgaard 2002, 346). If the same type of variation were to occur during
a comparison of electricity generation systems in GSED, the results could
not be effectively compared and the tool‘s validity would be called into
question. Therefore, an attempt was made to standardize these assumptions
within the comparison tool.

Scope. Defining GSED’s scope required a decision on which activities

within the electricity generation life cycle would be included in the LCA.
Activities directly related to electricity generation systems, such as the
production of steel, were included because of their direct impact on the
production process. The question of scope is related to defining the limits
of data collection. Choosing these limits is difficult because all processes
that make up an electricity generation production life cycle are connected to
many other processes by complex linkages. The decision was made to

26
collect data on the processes, materials, and energy sources used
specifically for the chosen technology‘s production, use, and disposal. For
example, when a wind turbine is being installed, a large construction crane
is needed to lift it into place. Within GSED, the data on the diesel fuel in
the crane would be collected because the fuel is used specifically in the
installation. In contrast, the materials that make up the crane itself would
not be considered because they can be used for other purposes.

The other major area of scope definition involved which types of

environmental and social impacts to consider with the comparison tool.
Traditional life cycle assessments and other environmental measurement
tools focus on a limited number of environmental impact categories, such
as greenhouse gas emissions and acidification potential (Ny 2006, 68).
These impacts are well understood, which allows detailed estimates of the
potential impacts of the materials and energy used in a production process.
However, the fact that this method focuses only on known environmental
problems constrains a traditional LCA‘s usefulness as a tool to compare
electricity generation technologies from a strategic sustainability
perspective. Many emerging sustainability issues are both dispersed and
complex, and a traditional focus on the understood impacts could miss
many of these problems.

In order to expand the scope of the impacts that GSED considers, the four
Sustainability Principles were integrated into the analysis process. For each
life cycle stage, the chosen electricity generation technology was analyzed
according to its contribution to unsustainable practices. The traditional
environmental impact categories were included in this analysis within
related Sustainability Principles. The process of identification and
measurement of these impacts with be discussed further in the impact
inventory section.

Functional Units. Within the life cycle assessment, a functional unit is the
unit of comparison between different alternatives that ensures that the
options being compared provide the equivalent level of function or service.
In the case of electricity generation, the service to the end consumer is the
amount of electricity produced by the chosen system. One type of
measurement for this unit is the installed capacity of a generation method.
As an example, a wind turbine that has the capacity to produce 2 megawatts
of electricity would be compared to an equivalent biomass plant. However,
this comparison would be flawed, because intermittent renewable

27
technologies like wind power only produce an average of 30% of their rated
capacity, while systems like biomass and nuclear at near total capacity for a
large percentage of the time. For this reason, the functional unit chosen for
the GSED tool was based on the actual amount of electricity produced over
the estimated lifetime of the generation technology, measured in kilowatt-
hours. The effect of this functional unit on the comparison process can be
illustrated with a hypothetical comparison of wind and biomass electricity
generation. The wind turbine may be expected to last for 20 years and
produce at 30% of its capacity, while the biomass plant is expected to
produce for 25 years at 80% capacity. Their sustainability impacts would
be normalized to the total amount of electricity they produced, which would
most likely be higher for the biomass plant. The choice of kilowatt-hours
allowed an effective comparison between all types of electricity generation.
In addition, it allowed the results to be compared to the majority of
electricity system life cycle assessments, since this functional unit is widely
used.

3.2.4 Life Cycle Inventory

The first stage of the LCA process is the life cycle inventory, where
possible environmental impacts are listed. The first step in inventory
creation is to build a flow diagram that visualizes the entire life cycle of the
product. This diagram includes all necessary inputs to the life cycle
(materials and energy) as well as all outputs (emissions, waste, and the
finished product itself). Once the inputs and outputs are visualized, a data
collection plan is created and quantitative data is gathered. Depending on
the specificity of this data, parts or all of the flow diagram are completed.
At the end of this process, an inventory of relevant inputs and outputs to the
life cycle is available to the decision-maker.

In a traditional LCA, after the inventory is completed the analysis moves on

to impact assessment, where the product‘s contributions to environmental
problems are analysed. In order to integrate a full sustainability
perspective into the GSED tool, materials, energy sources, and emissions
are first inventoried from the generic model of each electricity generation
technology. They are then organized into impact categories according to
the four Sustainability Principles: systematically increasing concentrations
of materials from the Earth‘s crust, systematically increasing concentrations
of substances produced in society, systematic physical degradation of the
ecosystem, and the systematic undermining of people‘s capacity to meet

28
their own needs. All inputs and outputs related to the life cycle are
included in one of the four categories. In the raw materials stage of wind
power, for instance, the metals aluminium, copper, and steel are organized
in the Materials from the Earth’s Crust category (see Appendix A for
details on the analysis of wind power).

These four impact categories are further divided into ten sub-categories,
shown in Figure 3.3. For example, the Man-Made Materials category is
sub-divided into the two main activities that lead to a violation of
Sustainability Principle Two: production and release of materials that are
both persistent in the biosphere and foreign to nature, and overproduction
of natural materials that systematically increase their concentration in the
environment. These two activities do not overlap (i.e. are mutually
exclusive) and together are the main drivers of violations of sustainability
principle two. This division into sub-categories serves the dual purpose of
clarifying the violations of the four Sustainability Principles and
categorizing potential unsustainable impacts in an easy to understand way.

Figure 3.2. Sustainability impact sub-categories

Once inputs and outputs are organized in their respective sub-categories,

they are analysed for their potential to contribute to unsustainable impacts.
This process begins with ten sustainability filter questions, one for each of
the impact sub-categories. These sustainability filter questions are
answered positively or negatively, and are designed to separate potentially
sustainable inputs and outputs from those that have may have an
unsustainable impact. The first sustainability filter question focusing on
materials from the Earth‘s crust asks:

Within this stage of the life cycle [raw materials, production, use, or
disposal], does this electricity generation method contribute to a

29
systematically increasing concentration of substances from the earth's crust
in nature through the use of scarce metals and other minerals?

To answer this question, a set of criteria are given for each of the sub-
categories. In the case of metals and minerals, the unsustainable impacts
depend on the size of human flows of the material compared to the natural
flows. This indicator, human flows divided by natural flows, is referred to
as the lithospheric extraction indicator (Azar, Holmberg, and Lindberg
1996). Within the GSED tool, this question is asked as:

Are any metals being used whose man-made flows are greater than natural
flows?

In the analysis of the raw materials stage of wind power, there were three
metals to study: aluminium, copper, and iron. In 2006, the annual human
flows from mining and the burning of fossil fuels were greater than natural
flows for both copper and iron (calculation is based on Azar, Holmberg,
and Lindberg, 96). In contrast, the human flows for aluminium were
estimated at only 6% of natural flows. Therefore, while aluminium was
included in the traditional life cycle inventory, it was filtered out of the
GSED inventory because it did not have a high potential for unsustainable
impacts. Copper and iron passed through the filter and were included in the
GSED inventory of materials, energy sources, and emissions that contribute
to unsustainable effects (Note: This does not include indirect effects of
aluminium production such as the electricity needed for the aluminium
smelter. If the electricity was generated from fossil fuels, then it would be
included in the Fossil Fuels sub-category).

Figure 3.3. GSED life cycle inventory process

30
In this way, all inputs and outputs from the generic electricity generation
model pass through a filter based on the four Sustainability Principles (for
an overview of all sub-categories and comparison criteria, see Appendix
A). At the end of this process, there are two inventories: a Sustainable
Inventory made up of inputs and outputs that do not violate the
Sustainability Principles, and an Unsustainable Impact Inventory of those
materials, energy sources, and emissions that could potentially keep the
chosen electricity generation system from being sustainable. If all of the
inputs and outputs in a category or sub-category are in the Sustainable
Inventory, then that category is in compliance with the four Sustainability
Principles. If, on the other hand, a category has a large Unsustainable
Impact Inventory, then it is flagged as a potential hot spot that may need
more analysis.

3.2.5 Impact Assessment

The impact assessment stage enables comparison of two or more electricity

generation systems are compared from a sustainability perspective. All
comparisons are based on processes, materials, energy sources, and
emissions in the Unsustainable Impact Inventory. Put differently, GSED
analyzes the strategic sustainability potential of electricity generation
systems according to the amount and severity of their unsustainable
impacts. These impacts are measured using criteria that are designed to be
mutually exclusive, collectively exhaustive regarding the FSSD, and easily
understood by decision-makers and the general public. Three decisions are
important to meeting these guidelines: the choice of criteria, the choice of a
reference point for success, and the method used to compare options.

The choice of criteria is influenced heavily by the types of indicators that

underlie the comparison process. The majority of sustainability indicators
can be divided into three main groups (see Figure 3.3): societal activity
indicators that measure activities occurring in society (i.e. the use of fossil
fuels); environmental pressure indicators that measure human activities
that will directly affect the environment (emission of greenhouse gases);
and environmental health indicators that measure the quality of the
environment (atmospheric CO2 concentrations) (Azar, Holmberg, and
Lindberg 1996, 90). Because GSED is designed to compare the
sustainability of electricity generation systems from the perspective of a
sustainable society, the comparison criteria were based on societal activity
indicators or environmental pressure indicators.

31
 Figure 3.4. Sustainability indicators, with examples

The choice between societal activity and environmental pressure indicators

are made depending on the nature of the unsustainable impact. Some
impacts have been studied extensively and their effects are relatively well-
understood. These include use of materials and processes that contribute to
climate change, eutrophication, and acidification (Carlson, Holmberg, and
Berndes 1997, 11). Extensive research and regulations have been created
to deal with these well-recognized threats to long term ecological
sustainability. In recognition of this fact, criteria related to these issues
would include environmental pressure indicators that measure direct
emission to the biosphere. The focus on pressure indicators allows greater
compatibility with traditional LCAs, because they focus almost exclusively
on these types of impacts. It also makes much more detailed plans
possible, including precise benchmarks involving mitigation.

Despite the benefits of environmental pressure indicators, their usefulness

is limited when studying unsustainable impacts whose effects in the

32
biosphere are not well understood. These types of impacts tend to be
complex, with dispersed, unpredictable effects (Azar, Holmberg, and
Lindberg 1996, 89). They also tend to be the impacts that traditional LCA
does not measure, and that the GSED tool is attempting to capture. In the
example of many scarce metals, it is extremely difficult to measure
emissions to the environment because of their dispersal in society and
unpredictable rates of disposal. Because of the uncertainty related to these
impacts, comparison criteria were chosen that measure human activities
(such as mining). This criteria framework causes some impacts to be
measured with different criteria types within the same impact category. For
instance, NOx, a heavily regulated pollutant, is measured using an
environmental pressure indicator. In the same category, plastics are
measured using a societal activity indicator (plastic produced for the
electricity generation system) because of their uncertain dispersal rates and
environmental effects.

When sustainability impacts have been measured, decision-makers must be

given a Sustainability Reference Point for each indicator to show the
ultimate sustainability goal and where the technology being studied
currently lies. GSED has three types of Sustainability Reference Points:

 For well understood impacts such as greenhouse gases, the

reference point is a level that would stabilize the impact at an
optimal level (for instance, stabilization of atmospheric CO2
levels at 450 ppm). However, the decision on what the optimal
level should be for a region or specific type of electricity
generation is dependent on the context.

 For materials that are both foreign to nature and persistent in the
environment, sometimes the goal would be zero (i.e. for the
chloroflurocarbons that damage the ozone layer). In that case, a
goal for the electricity generation system would also be zero.

 For other impacts, the amount of production/use that would put

human flows in line with natural flows. Again, however, the
choice of a reference point for electricity generation is a value-
laden decision.

Once Sustainability Reference Points are chosen, an electricity generation

technology‘s contribution to the problem needs to be measured and how far

33
it is from sustainability needs to be decided. The contribution from the
chosen technology is visualized on a continuum with the Sustainability
Reference Point to give the decision-maker an idea of where the current
reality is and where the technology needs to go.

Regardless of the choice of reference point, electricity generation options

can be compared in a number of ways. The two methods considered for
GSED focused on either an independent measure of impact severity or
relative comparisons to a reference electricity option. In an impact severity
comparison process, a scale would measure the impact of a technology
based on the distance for the Sustainability Reference Point (Figure 3.5).
This method has the advantage of providing clear contrasts between
technologies and allowing decision-makers to get an idea of the magnitude
of differences between options. However, an effective impact severity-
based comparison process would require a degree of consensus on the
definition of severe and less severe impacts.

Figure 3.5. Comparison process focusing on impact severity

For that reason, a comparison process that uses an electricity generation

option as a reference point was chosen for GSED. Using this method, a
certain technology is chosen as the benchmark, and the other options are
rated in comparison to this benchmark (Figure 3.6). This avoids the need to
agree on the definition of severity, and builds the comparison around the
differences between technologies. Within the comparison tool, this method
focuses attention on the differences between electricity generation
technologies and can give decision-makers useful guidance on the type of
electricity generation to choose.

34
 Figure 3.6. Comparison process using a reference electricity option

The entire impact analysis process is pictured below. Within the metals and
minerals sub-category, an electricity generation technology is analyzed
according to whether it uses metals or minerals that have human flows
greater than natural flows. If it does, then it is compared to other electricity
options.

Figure 3.7. Comparison Flowchart, Metals and Minerals Sub-Category

35
3.2.6 Life Cycle Interpretation

The results of the life cycle comparison are presented in a sixteen-box

matrix. The columns of the matrix represent the four Sustainability
Principles. The rows represent the four standardized life cycle stages.
Each sustainability principle/life cycle box is given a color depending on its
relative unsustainable impacts. There are four possible output colors:
green, yellow, orange, and red. Green is reserved for impact areas that do
not make a major contribution to unsustainable activities. The other three
colors are based on a comparative system where a generation method is
given a red if it is worse than the method it is being compared with, orange
if it is the same, and yellow if it is better.

Figure 3.8 GSED Results Matrix and color explanation

36
For instance, if an electricity generation technology uses fossil fuels and
scarce metals in the raw materials stage but the impacts are less severe than
other options, a yellow is shown in the appropriate section of the matrix.
All colors other than green are therefore dependent on the electricity
generation methods being compared. As a result, the results matrix can not
be filled out without a point of reference with which to compare the chosen
technology.

3.3 Tool Testing

The secondary research question asked:

Secondary Research Question: What are the resulting comparison

tool‘s strengths, areas for improvement, and inherent limitations?

To test the practicality of the GSED tool, an attempt was made to build
general comparison models for three renewable energy technologies and
test the comparison process described in Section 3.1. The results of this
process are given below.

3.3.1 Overview of Pilot Technologies

The three electricity generation technologies analyzed during the tool

testing phase were wind power, woodchip biomass power, and wave power.
Wind power generates electricity by harnessing the kinetic energy of the
Earth‘s wind currents (Boyle 2004, 244). The vast majority of wind-based
electricity generation today is produced by large wind turbines made of
steel, concrete, and a variety of synthetic materials. The key sustainability
aspects studied for wind power were the energy and materials that go into
the production of the turbine, and the fossil fuels that are necessary for
transportation.

Woodland biomass supplies electricity through the burning of wood chips

within an incinerator (Boyle 2004, 116). The smoke from the burnt wood
chips generates heat to produce steam in the pipes running above the
incinerator. The steam then passes through a turbine which produces
electricity while also outputting heat for a district supply.
The main industries involved in the biomass electricity production life
cycle are the utility developers, operators and wood chip providers. The key
sustainability aspects considered are the metals and fossil fuels used for

37
operations of the facility, the wood chip supply fossil fuel based transport
and land degradation from wood waste via local saw mills.

Wave power is an experimental form of electricity generation that uses a

buoy, a linear generator and magnets to generate power. The wave power
construction is fastened to a concrete foundation in the bottom of the sea
while a rope connects the generator to a buoy that is floating on the surface.
Waves make the buoy move upwards while a piston with magnets is
moving in the generator. A spring in the bottom of the generator is pulled
out when the buoy is moving upwards and pulled back when the wave is on
its way down. Because of this, electricity is generated both on the way up
and on the way down. The major sustainability aspects that were studied
for this type of wave power were the inputs used during production for both
the generator and the undersea cables that transfer power to the mainland.

3.3.2 Building General Comparison

Models

The first step of the tool testing phase was to compile various wind, wave,
and woodchip biomass data sources into general life cycle models.
Because these three technologies were at varying levels of technological
development, the data for these models was gathered using significantly
different methods. Data collection for wind generation, a mature and
widespread technology, drew from existing environmental impact and life
cycle assessments (Lenzen and Munksgaard 2002; Vestas 2006a; Vestas
2006b; Gagnon, Belanger, and Uchiyama 2002). In addition to this
literature review, the full life cycle of common wind turbines was explored
through workshops with two private firms. The first workshop, with the
wind project developer Vindcompaniet, focused on the use and disposal
stages of the turbine (Nicklasson 2008). The second workshop, with the
turbine manufacturer Vestas, built off of this information and focused on
the raw materials and production stages (Ronde 2008). The integration of
the data from these workshops with the existing literature made the wind
generation comparison model relatively complete and quantitatively
detailed.

In contrast to wind generation, literature reviews for woodchip biomass,

which uses waste wood from lumber yards and paper mills as fuel, found a
relative lack of existing life cycle assessments. It was therefore difficult to
obtain specific data on the lifecycle of the forestry waste used in woodchip

38
biomass, and, as a result, data collection focused on two workshops in the
southern part of Sweden. The first workshop, with an executive at the
biomass facility developer Järnforsen, collected data on the life cycle of the
biomass fuel, which was included in the use stage (Lonngren 2008). The
second workshop, with two employees of the Karlskrona district heating
plant, focused on the use and disposal stages (Lund 2008). These
workshops provided enough information to build a rough general model of
the woodchip biomass life cycle and its sustainability impacts. However,
the lack of quantitative data and guidance on the raw materials and
production stages (when the electricity generation facility was constructed)
hampered efforts to create a full comparison model.

The limiting factor for wave power data collection was a lack of actual
generating stations to study. Most wave power technologies are still in the
developmental stage (Boyle 2004, 324-330), and there is therefore a lack of
test data. As a result, the majority of wave power data were collected
through collaboration with the technology developers in Uppsala (Sundberg
2008a; Sundberg 2008b; Sundberg 2008c). This collaboration provided
information on the production, use, and disposal stages. Data on raw
materials and component production came from a variety of suppliers
(Gustavsson 2008; Eriksson 2008; Bröderna 2008). This series of
workshops and interviews made the creation of a general model possible.
However, the technology was at an early stage of development, so any
numerical estimates would be both very general and subject to significant
change.

3.3.3 Key Life Cycle Findings for Wind

Because there were a number of previous environmental assessments of

wind electricity generation, the results of the wind analysis are given here
as an example of a general comparison model. The model was a
combination of previous generic wind power LCAs and data gathered about
the Swedish market in particular. As expected, the majority of the impacts
occurred during the raw materials and production stages of the life cycle.
The major raw materials used for the process were aluminium, iron (in the
form of steel and cast iron), copper, plastic, fibreglass, wood, and concrete
(Vestas 2006a, 16). Materials included in the Unsustainable Impact
Inventory included copper and iron (Sustainability Principle 1), as well as
plastic, fibreglass, and concrete (Sustainability Principle 2). Aluminium
was not included in the inventory because of its extremely low lithosphere

39
extraction value. Two types of wood were used in the blades, PEFC
sustainable forestry certified birch wood from Finland and balsa wood from
Ecuador (Vestas 2006a, 16; Nicklasson 2008). Although there was a
general lack of information on the balsa wood, it was flagged as a possible
unsustainable impact.

For wind turbines installed in Sweden, raw material extraction and

component production often occurred domestically or in nearby
Scandinavian nations (Nicklasson 2008). This had a number of important
effects on the model assumptions. The first was that, because Sweden and
Norway have low amounts of fossil fuel electricity generation, systematic
increases in concentration of materials from the Earth‘s crust would come
disproportionately from transportation. Even so, domestic extraction and
production led to lower transportation estimates than the Vestas study,
which assumed a worse case scenario of inter-continental shipping (Vestas
2006a, 20).

Some synthetic lubricants and hazardous materials are used for the wind
turbine during production. Transportation is also needed in this stage.
Vestas has customers in all over the world and the turbines are transported
either by boat or trucks. For all production that happens within Scandinavia,
it is assumed that there are no direct contributions to Sustainability
Principle 4 violations.

In the use stage, the wind turbine must be inspected twice a year and fossil-
fuel based transportation is necessary for this process (Nicklasson 2008).
During this inspection, oil in the turbines is also changed. In the disposal
stage, most of the metals from all the sources are capable of being recycled.
90 percent of the metal counted to be recovered or recycled and the rest is
disposed into landfills (Vestas 2006a; Larsson 2008). The metals from the
cables can also be recycled but not to make new cables. The plastic is either
used for energy extraction or put on landfills. The glass fibre can neither be
recycled or reused today and has to be land filled as well (Ronde 2008).

Throughout the wind turbine life cycle, the majority of employees work in
Sweden or nearby countries. Because of the high standard of living and
strict worker protection laws in these nations, the model assumed that there
were no contributions to Sustainability Principle 4 violations. Other issues
commonly found in the public discourse, such as bird impacts, noise
problems, and aesthetic problems stemming from turbines‘ large size were

40
not considered to be important contributors to violations of the
Sustainability Principles.

3.3.4 Comparison Results

The goal of the pilot comparison was to build general models of the three
renewable energy technologies, create unsustainable impact inventories
with both quantitative and qualitative data, and use them to compare the
overall sustainability potential of wind, wave, and woodchip biomass.
Interviews and workshops were sufficient to build general life cycle models
for all of the electricity generation technologies. In addition to the models,
qualitative unsustainable impact inventories were also created. When set
side by side, the inventories gave a general overview of where the serious
impacts occurred, and which life cycle stages were in need of more detailed
research.

However, both qualitative and quantitative comparisons of the electricity

generation systems were extremely difficult. The biggest reason for this
was the general lack of data available for woodchip biomass and wave
power. There was enough quantitative data collected for wind power to
begin to make an assessment of major unsustainable impacts. However,
because GSED’s comparison method is dependent on at least one other
electricity generation option, it was not possible to complete a full analysis
of wind power or visualize the final results. Despite this limitation, the
pilot comparison played a valuable role in finding weaknesses and
limitations of the comparison process that would have been difficult to
discover without hands-on testing.

3.4 Expert Feedback

In addition to the testing process outlined in Section 3.3, a document

containing an early version of the tool‘s main attributes was sent to nine
outside experts. Their feedback was then collected through semi-structured
interviews. Interview respondents had expertise in life cycle assessment
(Lloyd 2008; Thompson 2008), the Framework for Strategic Sustainable
Development (Cook 2008; Dyer 2008; Hallstedt 2008; Kasnet 2008;
Lundqvist 2008; Sidowe 2008; Thompson 2008), and energy systems
(Svenningson 2008). Feedback was generally very positive and suggested
that a complete GSED tool could be useful to decision-makers trying to
choose sustainable electricity options. Interviews also revealed possible

41
areas for improvement in the comparison process, as well as inherent
limitations of the chosen method. Common themes from the feedback
sessions are outlined below, with representative quotes where appropriate.

3.4.2 Areas of Strength

There was a consensus among the surveyed experts that the overall
structure of the GSED tool, based on life cycle assessment integrated with
the Framework for Strategic Sustainable Development, would give
decision-makers useful guidance when choosing between renewable
electricity options.

"Using a tool based on a principled definition of

sustainability that captures the granular problems of deciding
on what type of system to employ in a simple to use model will
be a significant value driver in the business case for
sustainable solutions. Decision makers can quickly
understand the environmental impacts of their potential
choices before investing in a large capital expenditure.
Understanding the life cycle will ensure the most effective and
environmentally friendly source is chosen, significant
information in a carbon constrained world. This tool will
enable decision makers to understand the cost-benefit of their
potential investment and choose the one that will be best for
their bottom line while protecting the planet."

(Kasnet 2008)

A number of advisers specifically highlighted the fact that traditional

environmental assessments do not evaluate some of the most important
impacts that are included in the GSED comparison framework. An
example that was mentioned frequently was biomass-based electricity
generation and its effect on worldwide deforestation and food shortages.
GSED’s focus on this area was seen as a valuable expansion of current
practices (Cook 2008; Svenningson 2008).

“Regarding sustainability principle three, this is something

that often is missed in LCA today so this is good.”

(Svenningson 2008)

42
Considering human impacts with Sustainability Principle Four was also
seen as a valuable expansion of the scope of traditional life cycle tools. An
LCA practitioner had never seen an LCA address human impacts in this
way and reacted positively to the results (Lloyd 2008).

“You have areas that life cycle assessment doesn't capture,

like [sustainability principle] four, and I think that's extremely
valuable.”

(Lloyd 2008)

“Regarding the criteria and indicators, you are heading in

the right direction. With more time and research these areas
can offer a great value in the field.”

(Cook 2008)

GSED’s presentation of analysis results through a simple, color-coded

matrix was seen as another of the tool‘s key strengths. The visual
presentation could give users a strategic overview of a technology‘s
impacts without getting lost in the details (Dyer 2008). This result was
particularly important in light of past research in Sweden that revealed that,
because of data complexity, even environmentally-conscious organizations,
used the results of life cycle assessments in only 10% of their decisions.
(Zaricksson 1999).

“I really like the break out of the LCA though – seems to

capture it all without getting too bogged down, keeping it
simple.”

(Dyer 2008)

3.4.3 Areas for Improvement

The interviewees had a number of suggestion on how to improve GSED

and expand its scope. These fell into three main categories: clarifying the
process for handling trade-offs between renewable options, refining the
division and explanation of the Sustainability Principles, and expanding the
scope of the tool to include recycling, scalability, and the potential for
technological innovation.

43
Further Work Related to Trade-Offs. Two experts mentioned the
importance of distinguishing how trade-offs should be handled, and how
technologies with different but similar impacts should be compared (Lloyd
2008; Thompson 2008). The development process outlined above focused
on both criteria and scope of comparison. However it was not clear how
these criteria could be most effectively compared with each other (Lloyd
2008).

“Regarding impact analysis, if you are comparing two

technologies and they are violating [a sustainability
principle] in two different ways, how do you know which one
is better? You need quantifiable data to clarify which is same,
better, worse.”

(Thompson 2008)

Refinement of the Comparison Framework. Another area for improvement

was the division of the Sustainability Principles into sub-categories to
highlight important impact areas. The sustainable practitioners and LCA
experts found that it was important to raise these questions related to the
criteria. For instance, one adviser pointed out the need to clarify the term,
―Use,‖ in the tools criteria and indicators. This was brought up due to the
need for knowing if materials were being used and disposed of or a form of
recycling was performed (Lundqvist 2008). A glossary providing these
terms will be developed and to help clarify these issues.

“Regarding [Sustainability Principle Three], you need to

include long term productivity. Display impacts of long term
land use. Monocultures are not always bad; you can have
them effectively working as long as they are not affecting
biodiversity areas.”

(Lundqvist 2008)

Another illustration of this issue is shown with the comparison criteria used
for the tool‘s Scarce Metals and Minerals sub-category. These criteria are
mainly based on the assurance that materials are not being used that have
man-made flows higher than natural flows, but materials already known to
be harmful could be more specifically addressed (Lundqvist 2008).

44
 “Regarding a natural flows comparison, it is good to go with
the indicators that ensure you are using lower societal use
flows than natural flows BUT, also consider the use of more
specifically materials already known to have severe affects to
plants and animals.”

(Lundqvist 2008)

Scalability, Recycling, and Technological Development. Despite the fact

that the GSED tool expands the scope used by the majority of current life
cycle assessments, advisers pointed out additional issues that could be
addressed. One of these was the issue of scalability, whether a technology
can be produced at a large scale in a way that is as feasible and sustainable
as small scale production. There is an importance in clearly stating at what
degree the electricity generation‘s impact will result with respect to the
projected production. For instance, although a single wind turbine can be
constructed today there needs to be predictions made on the scale of impact
for expansion of the electricity generation system. The example was raised
with the bio-fuels again; where the concept seemed feasible at a small scale
but when increased massive impacts that were previously not considered
were then highly significant (Lackner 2008).

“Consider feasibility of resources being used. Include

resource scarcity and efficiency to consider if it is capable of
being applied at a large scale.”

(Lundqvist 2008)

Recycling was another important issue, mainly because the Sustainability

Principles focus on increasing concentrations in the biosphere and recycling
in tight technical loops is one of the main strategies to move towards a
more sustainable production system. If recycling is included in GSED, then
many of the unsustainable impacts may change in surprising ways. For
instance, in the initial analysis of wind power, iron (in the form of steel)
was included in the Unsustainable Impact Inventory. However, it is
important to note that steel, especially the steel used in wind turbines, has a
very high rate of recycling (approaching 90%) (Vestas 2006a, 22). The
importance of these issues has been recognized for a long time, and
traditional life cycle assessments often take them into account. Therefore
this is an area where the first version of GSED may have a more limited
scope than its traditional LCA counterparts.

45
Advisers also suggested further research into the role of technological
development, and how generation systems that are early in the innovation
process (such as wave power) should be treated when compared to mature
technologies (such as wind power). If this issue is not taken into
consideration, the tool may not encourage sufficient investment in
innovative solutions that are early in the development process (Dyer 2008).

3.4.4 Inherent Limitations

Because the comparison framework is based on generic, quantitative

models of electricity generation technologies, an adviser with expertise
with LCA-based tools raised the issue of data collection (Lloyd 2008).
Data that is integrated into the framework‘s design is essential because
without it, users may make their best guess at what the data is and come out
with a poor result. However, the amount of data that is available varies a
great deal between mature technologies and experimental designs. Though
steps can be taken to build data sets that are equivalent for these two types
of technology, there is always a limitation to how effective comparisons
using these ideas would be.

“One concern is where you get your data; once you make the
comparisons, there are a lot of data requirements. The user
might not be able to answer the questions because of data
constraints.”

(Lloyd 2008)

46
4 Discussion

4.1 Research Validity

The research benefited from an iterative development process that used

lessons learned from outside feedback and tool testing to continuously
improve the GSED tool‘s attributes. The results presented here are
therefore the culmination of a number of outside influences and internal
decisions. This situation allowed the research team to effectively
incorporate new ideas and improve the tool.

One of the study‘s major weaknesses was the lack of a fully functional
version of the GSED tool. Without a working tool, it was difficult to
effectively test the usefulness and accessibility of the comparison
framework. In the past, tools using the FSSD have been created and tested
with participants in a research setting (see Dyer, Mckay, and Mira 2006).
In many cases, these tools have focused on qualitative capacity building,
and could therefore be built and tested in a relatively short time. The GSED
tool, in contrast, required quantitative data, as well as decisions on how that
data would be weighted, to become a fully functional tool. This was
difficult to accomplish in the research period, and so conclusions related to
the usefulness and accessibility of the tool are preliminary.

4.2 Meeting the Success Criteria

The goal of this study was to build off of past research on electricity
generation, decision-making, and sustainability to create a decision-support
tool that could give clear guidance on the most effective options to move
the electricity generation system towards sustainability. To build an
effective and accessible tool, four critical success criteria were synthesized
to guide development and testing. The first version of the tool was
expected to have weaknesses, gaps, and limitations that could be addressed
through further research and development. Therefore, the success criteria
served as benchmarks to ensure that whatever the pilot tool‘s shortcomings,
it would provide a solid foundation for improvement and application in the
electricity generation industry.

47
4.2.1 Whole-Systems Perspective

The first success criterion focused on the need for a rigorous whole-systems
perspective using a scientifically principled definition of sustainability as a
strategic compass. The integration of LCA and FSSD expanded the scope
of the analysis and successfully gave GSED this important whole-systems
perspective. The criteria areas of the GSED were built around this
explanation of total-systems sustainability; defined through four
Sustainability Principles. This format combined major benefits of a number
of assessment tools, and could allow decision-makers to avoid costly, dead-
end investments in certain methods of electricity generation.

4.2.2 Ability to Compare a Wide Range of

Options

The second criterion focused on the ability to compare electricity

generation systems with different energy sources, costs structures, and
levels of development. A number of decisions revolved around the goal of
meeting this criterion, including the standardization of life cycle stages and
material/energy assumptions and the use of generic models that could
theoretically be built for even experimental technologies. The above
attributes expanded the possible scope of the tool, and its general ability to
compare all types of renewable electricity generation was backed up by tool
testing and expert feedback. The main challenge in this area related to the
validity of comparing technologies with large differences in the amount and
quality of available data.

4.2.3 Full Life Cycle Perspective

Third, the tool was expected to have an analysis framework that takes the
entire life cycle into account when analysing electricity generation options.
This was the easiest criterion to meet due to the extensive literature on life
cycle assessment for electricity generation and past work on integrating the
FSSD into this extremely powerful tool. The choice of scope and the
integration of life cycle thinking in GSED were found to be effective ways
to compare the most important impacts related to each generation
technology.

48
4.2.4 Ease of Use, Flexibility, and
Accessibility

The fourth criterion focused on the need for an interface and analysis
process that is easy to use, flexible, and accessible to a broad range of
stakeholders involved in the planning and implementation of electricity
generation projects. From the project team‘s work in the field, the results
found that the current framework has been capable of benefiting the
electricity generation field in two separate areas; one being the investor and
consultant and the other being the technology developer and operator. The
investors and consultant can apply GSED as a guide towards the most
sustainable electricity investment and the technology developers and
operators can apply the GSED to their current operations to discover
unsustainable practices and possible areas of improvement. In addition, the
presentation of comparison results appeared to be clear and easily
accessible.
The validity of these positive findings for the final success criterion are
weaker than the others, because the belief that this tool meets the minimum
requirements is the opinion of FSSD, LCA, and other experts, but not any
stakeholders or decision-makers that would be most likely to use the tool to
make the decision. This is due in large part to the early stage of
development of the tool and the fact that a working prototype has not yet
been created.

4.3 Areas for Improvement

4.3.1 Guidance on Trade-Offs

The issue of trade-offs is central to decision-making; however GSED‘s

design brought up new and interesting permutations of this problem. This
was especially clear in discussions related to the FSSD, which emphasizes
the use of a shared language to decide between possible trade-offs. In this
sense, the GSED tool may be used as only the first step in a process to
decide between trade-offs within a group of decision-makers. However, it
needs to be acknowledged that in the past, this type of consensus building
was done after an interactive meeting with the participating organization.
A number of firms and municipalities used this method successfully to
create and implement sustainability plans. The process involved personal

49
interaction, training of a large number of participants, and the creation of
solutions built from the knowledge of people within the industries.

In contrast, GSED does not explicitly go through this process, making it

more difficult to successfully communicate the thinking behind the FSSD.
The four Sustainability Principles, along with the FSSD in general, do not
necessarily conform to the types of analysis that decision-makers use
regularly. For instance, in the analysis of wind power, steel was flagged as
a possible unsustainable impact. This could be a strange, possibly
debatable concept for many users. This raises the question of the most
effective method to deal with these problems, and what role GSED should
play. The assumption coming into the research was that the tool would
play a part in prioritizing investment in renewable options. However, a
related question was not answered: how much of the decision process
should be internalized in the tool itself? It will be interesting if further
research can discover ways to effectively communicate and build
sustainability planning capacity through an interactive tool such as GSED.

4.3.2 Clarity Regarding the

Sustainability Principles

It was a challenge to ensure that the presentation of the Sustainability

Principles was both scientifically-sound and clear to users unfamiliar with
FSSD. The implications of contributing to the root causes of sustainability
had to be explained in a way that made it easy for decision-makers to
understand the issues involved and also build their capacity to emerging
unsustainable impacts that might arise with new designs or experimental
technologies. Therefore, many of the terms applied to the Sustainability
Principles are in a continual process of revision to meet these two goals.
Definitions for terms such as, ―Structural Power Abuse,‖ and ―Nature-Like
Materials,‖ need to be presented in a clear and concise language applicable
to the practitioner who would be using the tool in the field. With the limits
of the current research, these terms are still not complete in definition. The
indicators addressing the Power Abuse Areas were more specifically raised
as a challenge. It is not clear whether quantifiable or qualitative data should
be used to measure these types of impacts. More research is necessary to
answer these questions.

50
4.3.3 Additional Areas to Consider

Recycling, technological innovation, and scalability were areas that were

overlooked in the initial design of GSED, but that need to be seriously
considered in future versions. The inclusion of recycling gives users a
clearer understanding not just about which materials are used, but also the
likelihood of their emission into the biosphere where they can increase in
concentration. In theory, human society can mine materials at a much
faster rate than they are absorbed by the environment as long as they are
kept in tight technical loops within society. The feasibility of this solution
is unclear; however, it is important to include these questions in the
comparison to increase the options available to move towards a sustainable
electricity system.

Including possible technological innovation and scalability concerns in the

comparison process would help give users a way of comparing the future
potential of different options. It could also avoid serious environmental and
social consequences stemming from overinvestment in technologies with
limits to potential capacity (i.e. biomass) and myopic focus on a slightly
cheaper option that has much less overall potential than a slightly more
expensive, but technologically dynamic alternative.

4.4 Inherent Limitations

In general, the inherent limitations of the GSED tool relate to issues that are
common to decision-making in general. Although these problems do limit
the scope and usefulness of the tool, they are also useful limits in which to
build strategically effective guidance for decision-makers. The possible
difficulty of data collection, especially for experimental technologies and
unsustainable impacts such as deforestation and the weakening of the social
fabric, posed a significant challenge. This issue has been discussed at
length by others in the field, and constrains the quantitative nature of the
tool (Lundqvist and Holmberg, 2000, 13). On the other hand, it can be
argued that access to too much data, from numerous sources, can lead to
confusion, decision paralysis, and the loss of the big picture. So while the
challenge of data collection can be seen as limiting, it is also useful to
remember that using a whole-systems, less detailed perspective can lead to
strategic insight and is compatible with the FSSD.

51
Because investment in a new, renewable electricity system is such a high
priority, another major goal of GSED‘s next version is to ensure that it does
not become another procedural hurdle that slows down the critical
transition to a sustainable energy system. By showing a clear assessment
comparing the current unsustainable options to the renewable ones, the tool
will present a case for the environment, business, and society as a whole.

52
5 Conclusion

The environmental sustainability challenge makes effective strategic

planning extremely important, both for society as a whole and the
electricity generation system in particular. To transition to a sustainable
electricity system, rigorous and accessible decision-support tools are
necessary. This study first found gaps in the current decision-making
process related to a lack of a whole systems perspective, availability of
comparison criteria, and a strategic overview. In response to this
background research, the thesis team created the first research question:

Primary Research Question: What are the key attributes of a comparison

tool that prioritizes investment in renewable electricity options using the
Framework for Strategic Sustainable Development?

The GSED tool was designed as a pilot project to test how the FSSD could
be used to create a tool with a whole-systems view that would be easy to
use and able to compare a variety of renewable electricity generation
technologies. These success criteria were used to guide decisions related to
the goal and scope, inventory process, and basic impact assessment
framework.

Secondary Research Question: What are the resulting comparison tool‘s

strengths, areas for improvement, and inherent limitations?

Testing, feedback, and discussion confirmed that GSED successfully met

the key success criteria for this type of tool and could be a useful decision
aide for a wide variety of stakeholders. It also highlighted areas of
improvement that could be used as leverage points to make the tool more
effective, accessible, and rigorous.

5.1 Next Steps

The preliminary GSED comparison tool developed in this study has the
potential to be turned into a functional decision-support program for a
sustainable electricity system. The main focus on this thesis was the
framework and decision tree connected with the analysis portion of the tool.
In order to create a fully functioning version, a number of further sections

53
will need to be developed. A few areas that are important to reach this goal
include:

A clear, e-learning explanation of the FSSD. To use the GSED tool

effectively, decision-makers will have to have a clear understanding of the
Framework for Strategic Sustainable Development. This will require a
step-by-step explanation of the scientific foundations, principles, and
implementation of the framework. In the context of a software tool, this
goal can most likely be met by creating an electronic learning module
within GSED to build an understanding of the framework. A clear
integrated explanation of these concepts is especially important because not
all users of the tool will be familiar with the framework or have access to
facilitators from the relevant non-profit organizations. In the past, the
FSSD has been used in a qualitative way to assist decision-makers trying to
make choices in their own specific organizations. In contrast, this tool has
been designed to be general and useable in many different situations.

Guide Sheets. The way that impacts will be measured in a full GSED tool
will be different than most environmental practitioners and life cycle
assessment leaders are used to. An extensive, well-researched explanation
of the rationale for this method must be provided to users to increase buy-in
and give them the tools to get effective results.

A Method to Weight Impact Areas. Since in reality only a few criteria are
usually used in decisions, users need the ability to include their own
weightings and make the analysis useful for them. This will involve
interactive tools to let the user make decisions on the relative weights on
the basis of the three prioritization questions (right direction, flexible
platform, positive return on investment). For example, many decision-
makers will be most interested in an electricity generation system‘s effect
on greenhouse gases.

5.1.1 Integration with Existing Tools

A number of outside advisers suggested that the GSED tool could be very
effective if it was integrated with current decision-support tools that focus
on project feasibility, energy modelling, and return on investment. In this
way, the sustainability impacts of renewable technologies could be included
in the existing decision-making process in a way that would be easier to
understand. The ultimate goal would be the creation of an integrated
decision-making platform that would allow users to consider economic,

54
technical, social, and ecological comparison criteria when choosing
between renewable electricity options.

5.2 Final Thoughts

“If I have seen further, it is by standing on the shoulders of giants”

-Isaac Newton

This study is built on the work of the creators of the Framework for
Strategic Sustainable Development and the experts who have built an
extensive body of knowledge about energy systems over the past 30 years.
The authors see this thesis as a small contribution to these fields. If this
study is able to give concerned stakeholders in the electricity generation
industry the beginnings of an effective decision-support tool to choose
between renewable electricity options, then it will be considered a success.
Hopefully, this is the first step in a larger research process that will
contribute to society‘s movement to a sustainable and equitable electricity
generation system.

55
References

Ardente, Fulvio et al. 2005. ―Life cycle assessment of a solar thermal

collector‖ Renewable Energy 30 (7): 1031-1054.

Azar, Christian, John Holmberg, and Kristian Lindberg. 1996.

―Socio-ecological indicators for sustainability‖ Ecological
Economics 18: 89-112.

Andersson, Karin, Merete Eide, Ulrika Lundqvist, and Berit Mattsson.

1998. ―The feasibility of including sustainability in LCA for
product development.‖ Journal of Cleaner Production 6:
289-298.

Barnaby, Frank and James Kemp. 2007. ―Secure Energy? Civil Nuclear
Power, Security, and Global Warming.‖ London: Oxford
Research Group.

Bourque, Kevin, Project Engineer, RETScreen. 2008. Interview by

authors, April 28, phone interview.

Boyle, Godfrey. 2004. Renewable Energy: Power for a Sustainable

Future. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Carlson, Ulrika, John Holmberg, and Göran Berndes. 1997. ―Socio-

Ecological Indicators for Sustainability for Gotland, Sweden‖
PhD Diss., Chalmers University.

Cook, David, Executive Director, The Natural Step International. 2008.

Interview by authors, April 29, phone interview.

Daily, Gretchen. 1997. ―Ecosystem Services: Benefits Supplied to Human

Societies by Natural Ecosystems.‖ Issues in Ecology 1 (2): 1-
18.

de Jager, David, Consultant, Ecofys Consulting. 2008. Interview

by authors, March 16, phone interview.

Dreborg Karl. 1996. ―Essence of Backcasting.‖ Futures 28: 813-828.

56
Dyer, Georges. 2008. Interview by authors, April 24, personal email.

Dyer, Georges, Michelle McKay, and Mauricio Mira. 2006. ―From Clean
Development to Strategic Sustainable Development: A
Strategic Approach to the Clean Development Mechanism.‖
Master‘s Thesis, Blekinge Institute of Technology.

Ebenå, Gustav. 2007. ―Energi som miljömål.‖ Swedish Energy Agency.

Eriksson, Krister, Production Service Departement at Bröderna

Edstrand.. 2008. Interview by authors, April 13, phone
interview.

Energy Information Administration. 2005. ―International Net Electricity

Generation Tables: All Countries, 1980-2005.‖ Accessed at
www.eia.doe.gov, June 5, 2008.

Environmental Protection Agency. 2006. ―Life Cycle Assessment:

Principles and Practice.‖ EPA/600/R-06/060.

Gagnon, Luc, Camille Belanger, and Yohji Uchiyama. 2002.

―Life-cycle assessment of electricity generation
options: The status of research in year 2001.‖ Energy
Policy 30: 1267-1278.

Gustavsson, Magnus, VD Svenska Magnetfabriken. 2008. Interview by

authors, April 15, phone interview.

Hallstedt, Sophie, PhD Researcher, Blekinge Institute of Technology.

2008. Interview by authors, May 2, in-person interview.

Heaps, Charlie, Director of Stockholm Environment Institute, U.S. Center.

2008. Interview by authors, April 24, phone interview.

Holmberg, John and Karl-Henrik Robèrt. 2000. ―Backcasting from non-

overlapping sustainability principles – a framework for strategic
planning.‖ International Journal of Sustainable
Development and World Ecology 7: 291-308.

Hägg, Conny, Senior Adviser, Swedish Ministry of the Environment. 2008.

Interview by authors, March 28, survey response.

57
Imperial Chemical Industries (ICI). 2007. ―ICI Sustainability Review 2006‖
London, UK: ICI.

International Energy Agency. 2006. ―World Energy Outlook: Summary

and Conclusions.‖ United Kingdom: Turpin Distribution.

International Standards Organization 14040. 2006. ―Environmental

management - Life cycle assessment -Principles and
framework.‖ ISO: Geneva.

Johansson, Thomas and Peter Steen. 1978. Solar Sweden - An Outline of a

Renewable Energy System. Stockholm: Secretariat for Future
Studies.

Kasnet, Archie, Partner, Aedi Group. 2008. Interview by authors,

April 21, phone interview.

Lackner, Alexander, Consultant, Concurrent Technologies

Corporation. 2008. Interview by the authors, March
30, phone interview.

Larsson, Håkan, Sales Department, Stena Metal Recycling. 2008.

Interview by authors, April 13, phone interview.

Lenzen, Manfred and Jesper Munksgaard. 2002. ―Energy and CO2 life-
cycle analyses of wind turbines—review and applications‖
Renewable Energy 26 (3): 339-362.

Lonngren, Fredrik, Development Planner, Järnforsen Energi System AB.

2008. Interview by authors, April 14, phone interview.

Lund, Mikael, Operations Administrator, Gulberna Park Biomass Energy

Facility. 2008. Interview by authors, March 14, workshop.

Lundqvist, Ulrika, Lecturer, Chalmers University. 2008. Interview by

authors, April 29, phone interview.

Lundqvist, Ulrika and John Holmberg. 2000. ―Characteristics and

application of frameworks for indicators in the context of
sustainable development.‖ Chalmers University.

58
Lloyd, Shannon, Principle Research Engineer, Concurrent Technologies
Corporation. 2008. Interview by authors, April 30, phone
interview.

Mason, James E. 2007. ―World energy analysis: H2 now or later?‖

Energy Policy 35: 1315-1329.

Melin, Jens, Environmental Manager, Falkenberg Energy.

Interview by authors, April 18, survey response.

Michaelis Peter. 1998. Life-cycle assessment of energy systems.

University of Surrey.

Munson, Richard. 2005. From Edison to Enron. Connecticut and London:

Praeger.

Nicklasson, Staffan. Project Manager, Vindcompaniet. April 8, workshop.

Nielsen, Rolf. 2006. ―Final Resting Place.‖ New Scientist 189 (2541): 38-
41.

Ny, Henrik. 2006. ―Sustainability Constraints as System Boundaries: An

Approach to Making Life Cycle Management Strategic.‖
Journal of Industrial Ecology 10 (1-2): 61-77.

Ronde, Klaus, Engineer, Vestas Energy. Interview by authors, April 11,

workshop.

Sims, Ralph E.H. et al. 2007. ―2007: Energy Supply‖ in Climate Change
2007: Mitigation. Contribution of Working Group III to the
Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on
Climate Change. Cambridge, United Kingdom and New
York: Cambridge University Press.

Silveira, Semida. 2001. Building Sustainable Energy Systems: Swedish

Experiences. Stockholm: Swedish National Energy Agency.

Sindowe, Benny, Human Resources Officer, Zesco Ltd. 2008.

Interview by authors, April 18, phone interview.

59
Spitzley, David V., and Gregory A. Keoleian. 2005. ―Life Cycle
Environmental and Economic Assessment of Willow Biomass
Electricity: A Comparison with Other Renewable and Non-
Renewable Sources‖. University of Michigan Center for
Sustainable Studies. CSS04-05R.

Sundberg, Jan, Project Coordinator, Wave Power,

Ångströmslabratoriet. 2008a. Interview by authors, January
24, phone interview.

Sundberg, Jan, Project Coordinator, Wave Power,

Ångströmslabratoriet.. 2008b. Interview by authors, April 4,
in-person workshop.

Sundberg, Jan, Project Coordinator, Wave Power,

Ångströmslabratoriet. 2008c. Interview by authors, April 17,
phone interview.

Svenningson, Per, Lund Institute of Technology. 2008. Interview by

authors, May 2, phone interview.

Svensk Energi. 2007. ―Kraftläget i Sverige.‖

Tellenius, Björn, Special Adviser, Swedish Energy Department. 2008.

Interview by authors, April 22, phone interview.

Thompson, Tony, PhD Student, Sustainable Product Innovation, Blekinge

Institute of Technology. 2008. Interview by authors, April
29, in-person interview.

Twidell, John. and Weir, Anthony. 1986. Renewable Energy Resources.

London: E & FN Spon.

Ullman, David. 2006. Making Robust Decisions. Oxford: Trafford

Publishing.

Vitousek, Peter and Harold Mooney. 1997. ―Human domination of Earth's

ecosystems.‖ Science 277: 494-499.

60
Vestas Wind Energy. 2006a. ―Life cycle assessment of electricity produced
from onshore sited wind power plants based on Vestas V82-
1.65 MW Turbines‖. Randers: Vestas.

Vestas Wind Energy. 2006b. ―Life cycle assessment of offshore and

onshore sited wind power plants based on Vestas V90-3 MW
Turbines‖. Randers: Vestas.

Widstrand, Susanna, Energy Technique Department, Swedish Energy

Agency. Interview by authors, April 21, phone interview.

World Summit on Sustainable Development (WSSD), Johannesburg, South

Africa. 2002. ―Plan of Implementation.‖ United Nations
Department of Economic and Social Affairs, Division of
Sustainable Development.

Ward, Ken. 2005. ―From Mountaintop to Moonscape.‖ Planning 71 (8):

28-34.

Wrisberg, Nicoline et al. 2002. Analytical Tools for Environmental Design

and Management in a Systems Perspective: The Combined
Use of Analytic Tools. London: Springer. Holland: Kluwer
Academic Publishers.

Zaricksson, Mats, Maria Enroth, and Angelica Widing. 1999.

―Environmental Management Systems: Paper Tiger or
Powerful Tool.‖ Stockholm: Industrial Research Institutes in
Sweden.

Örtenvik, Mattias, Environmental Manager, E.on Energy. 2008. Interview

by authors, April 22, survey response.

61
Appendix A: Analysis of Wind Power

Sustainability Principle 1:: Does the electricity generation method

contribute to a systematically increasing concentration of substances
from the earth's crust in nature…

Question Comparison Criteria

...through the use of scarce metals Averaged severity for all
and other minerals? metals used in the process.
...through the use and combustion of Amount of fossil fuels used.
fossil fuels?
System Condition 2: …contribute to a systematically increasing
concentration of substances from society…
Question Comparison Criteria
...through the use of materials foreign Amount of man-made
to nature? materials that are foreign to
nature.
...through the overproduction and use Amount of man-made
of nature-like materials? materials that fit criteria.
System Condition 3: …contribute to a systematically increasing
degradation of the biosphere…
Question Comparison Criteria
...through the over-harvesting of Amount of natural resource
natural resources? over-harvesting.
...through the use of monocultures Amount of monoculture use.
and loss of biodiversity?
…through land use changes? Amount of land use changes in
sensitive areas
System Condition 4: Within this stage of the life cycle, does the
electricity method contribute to the systematic undermining of people’s
capacity to meet their own needs…

Question Comparison Criteria

…through the abuse of political
power?
…through the abuse of economic
power?
…through the abuse of
structural/environmental power?
Qualitative assessment of
political power abuse.
Qualitative assessment of
economic power abuse.
Qualitative assessment of the
severity of structural power
abuse.

62
Raw Materials Stage Yes/No Notes
Sustainability Principle 1:
Systematically increasing concentration
of substances from the earth's crust in
nature…
...through the use of scarce metals and Yes Copper, Iron, Uranium (from
other minerals? power generation).

...through the use and combustion of Yes Extraction, Transportation

fossil fuels? Fuel.
Sustainability Principle 2:
Systematically increasing concentration
of substances from society…
...through the production and use of Yes Plastic, fiberglass, epoxy.
materials foreign to nature?
...through the overproduction and use of Yes NOx and SO2 from
nature-like materials? transportation.

Sustainability Principle 3:
Systematically increasing degradation of
the biosphere…
...through the over-harvesting of No
natural resources? The major possible impact
...through the use of monocultures and No from this life cycle stage
loss of biodiversity? would be land use changes
caused by mining, and
…through land use changes? Yes possible effects from balsa
wood harvesting.

Sustainability Principle 4: Systematic

undermining of people’s capacity to meet
their own needs…
…through the abuse of political power?
…through the abuse of economic
power?
…through the abuse of
structural/environmental power?
No According to interviews and
workshops, the vast majority
of raw materials come from
No Western Europe, which has
strong worker protections,
No opportunities for participation,
and safety laws.

63
 Wind
Title: Power
Sustainability principles
Electricity
Capacity: 1.6 MW

Materials Man-made Degradation Undermining

from the materials. of capacity to
Avg. Life earth’s biosphere. meet human
Span: 20 years crust. needs

Raw
Materials Green
Life Cycle Stages

Production
Green Green

Use
Green Green

Disposal
Green Green

64
Appendix B: Example of GSED Glossary

Biodiversity: The variation of life forms within an ecosystem, biome, or

the entire Earth.

Economic Power Abuse: Manipulation of the economic system in such a

way that benefits an organization at the expense of others' ability to meet
their needs. This can be through channels such as unbalanced trade
agreements or withholding funding needed for a project‘s success.

Ecosystem Manipulation: Any change occurring within an ecosystem that

is capable of undermining the ecosystem‘s natural cycles.

Environmental Power Abuse: Misplacement of individuals or groups in

spaces that are structured in a way that undermines their capacity to meet
their own needs. This can manifest through the removal of green spaces,
provisions of un-ergonomic work stations, or the creation of hazardous
working or living conditions.

Fossil Fuels: Hydrocarbons extracted from the lithosphere by society to

operate as a fuel source. Main types of forms being used: Oil, Gas and
Coal.

Lithosphere extraction indicator: to measure the extracted rate of the

elements divide with the rate of natural supply coming from weathering and
volcano. The higher rate compared to the natural sedimentation the higher
is the accumulation in the ecosphere.

Man-made materials: Materials foreign to nature and nature-like materials

Materials Foreign to Nature: Human-made substances that are unknown

to nature and therefore are not capable of being assimilated into natural
cycles.

Monocultures: The practice of producing or growing one single crop over

a wide area thus leading to reduction of biodiversity within the ecosystem.

Natural Resource Harvesting: The extraction of resources provided by

nature within the biosphere.

65
Nature-Like Materials: Substances based from materials in nature that
are being emitted into the ecosystem at a rate faster than they can be
reintegrated into natural cycles. (TNS Canada SC2 Doc)

Political Power Abuse: The misuse or exploitation of any position of

authority. This can come in the form of governmental or organizational
leadership that enact policies or regulations which (intentionally or not)
disenfranchise some group or cause.

Scarce metals and minerals: Metals and minerals society has extracted
from the lithosphere into the biosphere at a faster rate than they are
naturally returned into the lithosphere.

Sensitive Ecosystem: An ecosystem at-risk or ecologically fragile in the

provincial landscape. A highly sensitive ecosystem is listed as extirpated,
endangered, or threatened.

66
Appendix C: Exploratory Interviews

Name, Position Organization

David De Jager,
Ecofys, Sustainable Energy Consulting Firm
Consultant

Tad Mason, CEO TSS Consultant, Renewable Energy Consulting

Firm

Jesse Gossett, Emergent Energy Group, Renewable Energy

Consultant Consulting Firm

Alexander Lackner, Concurrent Technologies Corporation,

Consultant Sustainability Consulting Firm

Charlie Heaps,
Software Developer LEAP, Energy Planning Software

Kevin Bourque,
RET Screen, Renewable Energy Developers
Software Developer
Conny Hägg, Senior
Adviser Swedish Ministry of the Environment
Björn Tellenius,
Swedish Energy Agency
Special Adviser
Erik Dahlström,
Swedish Energy Agency
Manager
Tobias Persson,
Analyst Swedish Energy Agency

Susanna Widstand,
Swedish Energy Agency
Adviser

67
Appendix D: Workshop Participants

Name, Position Company, Role in Electricity

Industry
Paul Riyke, Facility Gullberna Park, Woodland Biomass
Manager; Mikael Lund, Districty Heating Facility
Facility Administrator

Fredrik Lönngren, Janforsen, Woodland Biomass Facility

Development Planner Developer

Klaus Rønde, Safety and Vestas, Wind Power Developer

Environment Engineer

Staffan Niklasson, Project Vindcompaniet, Wind Power Provider

Management

Jan Sundberg, Developer Division of Electricity and Lighting

Research, Wave Power Developer

68
Appendix E: Feedback Interviews

Name Position

David Cook Executive Director, The Natural

Step International

Archie Kasnett Sustainability Practitioner, Aedi

Group

Benny Sindowe Principal HR Officer, ZESCO

Electricity

Ulrika Lundqvist Professor of Energy and

Environment, Chalmers University

Shannon Lloyd LCA Practitioner, Concurrent

Technologies Corporation

Tony Thompson Sustainability PhD

Student/Research, Blekinge
Institute of Technology
Per Svenningsson Professor of Environmental and
Energy Systems Studies, Lund
University
Sophie Hallstedt PhD in Sustainable Product
Development, Blekinge Institute of
Technology

Georges Dyer Sustainability Practitioner,

Greenland Enterprises

69